| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 168424600 by amalash @ 2025-07-03 04:40 | 1 | 2025-07-03 05:31 | Milhouse ♦26 | Hi shyamalashanthi!Welcome to OpenStreetMap! My name is Steven and I do a lot of mapping in Ealing.I see you've been mapping pavements in Northfields and though you are free to map whatever you like, wanted to check whether you understood how pedestrian routing worked and whether adding... |
| 2 | 2025-07-03 16:37 | ndrw6 ♦77 | Hi Steven,While I understand your concern about maintainability or excessive details, adding pavements (as well as any other details) is perfectly fine. Mappers may have different ideas on what details are important. There's also no requirement for edits to be complete or even correct, as l... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-08 10:28 | rphyrin ♦1 | Regarding the debate on whether we should map the sidewalk as a separate geometry : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kumakyoo/diary/406875 | |
| 4 | 2025-07-08 12:47 | Milhouse ♦26 | Hi rphyrin,Yes, absolutely there are circumstances where mapping sidewalks separately records very useful information, and other places where it adds no useful information, makes the map look crap and incomplete, and can actually complicate routing decisions. I would argue that this particular... | |
| 5 | 2025-07-08 15:28 | Cebderby ♦300 | Where the sidewalk is continuously adjacent to the carriageway (no big grass areas etc just an immediate kerb), and has no special access (eg shared cycleway), then the extra footway is a duplicate way. The public highway is mapped and carries the foot traffic. We don't add a second footway ... | |
| 6 | 2025-07-08 16:27 | ndrw6 ♦77 | Cebderby, I understand your point but it is still _your_ preference and opinion. Others will disagree, as it is common in all discussions about the level of detail. Please refrain from accusing others of bad mapping only because you disagree with their choices. | |
| 7 | 2025-07-08 17:49 | Milhouse ♦26 | ndrw6, but people are pointing out how this makes the data harder to work with.It would help if amalash would reply and acknowledge the incorrect mapping and explain the use case they think they are serving, but since this changeset comment they've ignored they've gone on to:Map sidewa... | |
| 8 | 2025-07-08 17:50 | Milhouse ♦26 | Also if you are going to map sidewalks as separate ways, shouldn't you then remove the sidewalk=both tag from the road, or at least tag sidewalk=separate? | |
| 9 | 2025-07-08 19:49 | ndrw6 ♦77 | Milhouse,My issue with this discussion is calling such changes "incorrect" or "bad mapping" when objectively they are not. I do not see why amalash would need to acknowledge that. Incomplete data are a norm - just look at this map, there are partially mapped fences or individ... | |
| 10 | 2025-07-08 22:51 | Milhouse ♦26 | Hey, OpenStreetMap, give me a walking route from 23 Balmoral Gardens to 23 Jersey Road on the other side of the road.https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.502463%2C-0.326765%3B51.502593%2C-0.327133#map=19/51.502408/-0.326554Yeah, I'm going back to ... | |
| 11 | 2025-07-08 22:52 | Milhouse ♦26 | If you can't see why getting ways wrong creates a fundamental problem with one of the primary use cases of a geospatial database I don't think it's worth continuing the conversation. | |
| 12 | 2025-07-09 08:41 | ndrw6 ♦77 | I would say this is a router issue. I am not even sure if it uses sidewalk= tags at all, it seems to fallback to any roads that don't explicitly ban pedestrians. At the same time it indeed over-prioritises footways.The solution is to keep mapping and keep improving routers. Not to dumb down... | |
| 13 | 2025-07-09 08:45 | Milhouse ♦26 | The. Data. Is. Wrong! | |
| 14 | 2025-07-12 09:10 | Wynndale ♦54 | These pavements are buttjoined onto the road traversably. We don’t map lanes of roads separately, how are these any different? Also one participant to this conversation has been making unhelpful edits. | |
| 15 | 2025-07-12 13:00 | SomeoneElse | For info, the DWG got a nudge which mentioned this changeset discussion (not, I hasten to add, a complaint about it directly). I think a forum thread might make more sense (it'd be a bit more visible and allow easier linking) so I've created that at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/s... | |
| 168582995 by Murali3 @ 2025-07-07 01:20 | 1 | 2025-07-11 19:20 | SomeoneElse | Hello You've written "added tags" in the changeset comment here, but that doesn't really help other OSM mappers understand what you changed and what the source was.It would be great if you could use a bit more detail!Best Regards,Andy |
| 168717791 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-07-09 23:06 | 1 | 2025-07-10 10:25 | gurglypipe ♦873 | leisure=outdoor_seating outdoor_seating=yes doesn’t make any sense.Why make this change? |
| 2 | 2025-07-10 23:20 | SomeoneElse | It was a cockup on my part - I thought that I was changing the "outdoor_seating" tag on the pub, not the "outdoor_seating" tag on the outdoor seating... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-10 23:28 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Hah, yes, I can see how that could happen. Thanks for fixing it(For anyone else who reads this, it was fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168764186) | |
| 168708301 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-07-09 17:59 | 1 | 2025-07-09 19:27 | SomeoneElse | This failed with "cannot upload changeset: 520 <none> at /home/ajtown/src/osm-revert-scripts/lib/Progress.pm line 104.", which isn't great.The changeset comment was supposed to be "Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks... |
| 124097210 by deduce technologies @ 2022-07-26 13:30 Active block | 1 | 2022-07-29 11:46 | highflyer74 ♦2,447 | Hello!Recently a couple of addresses were added that contain addr:communee=*. This seems to be a new key that is not used anywhere else on the planet.Can you help me further as to why this is used?All the best! |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 18:26 | SomeoneElse | @deduce technologies : what was the source of this data? | |
| 168708082 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-07-09 17:53 | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 168631271, 168631326, 168631334, 168631918, 168648673, 168675005, 168676597, 168676615, 168680892, 168680909, 168680937, 168693810, 168693861, 168693935. |
| 168708079 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-07-09 17:53 | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 168631271, 168631326, 168631334, 168631918, 168648673, 168675005, 168676597, 168676615, 168680892, 168680909, 168680937, 168693810, 168693861, 168693935. |
| 168631326 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 05:22 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168676597 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 05:03 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168648673 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 12:49 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168693861 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 12:34 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 12:51 | NeisReview ♦936 | #DataImportHi, welcome to OSM!With this changeset, you've added a significant number of features that appear to share similarities in their tags. Could you please let us know more about the source of your mapping activity? Is this a data import?Looking forward to hearing from you.... |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 | |
| 168631334 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 05:22 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168631918 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 05:46 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168680892 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 07:34 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168680937 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 07:35 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168693935 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 12:36 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168680909 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 07:34 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168676615 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 05:04 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168631271 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 05:19 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168675005 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 03:39 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 |
| 168693810 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 12:33 Active block | 1 | 2025-07-09 12:50 | NeisReview ♦936 | Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168693861 |
| 2 | 2025-07-09 17:53 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428 | |
| 165611883 by JassKurn @ 2025-04-29 23:14 | 1 | 2025-07-07 23:11 | SomeoneElse | I'm guessing that the gaps here are due to Storm Bert https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgndlp303go ? |
| 2 | 2025-07-08 11:37 | JassKurn ♦154 | Yes, and you've reminded me that I've got to update it. Water started flowing into the quarry to the east, and land to west was washed into quarry. At time I mapped it the area was flooded but receding, so didn't add water. The water is still there and being fed by a flow from the... | |
| 165019203 by Dave Venables @ 2025-04-16 09:29 | 1 | 2025-07-04 18:15 | SomeoneElse | Hi,If this is open again I guess that the "disused:amenity=dentist" tag can go?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-07-05 08:38 | Dave Venables ♦165 | I've just marked Whitaker Dental Practice as disused https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65724144 as I had spotted when passing n 2021Incorrectly added back earlier this year as shown on the Healthcare Quarterly project tool and on the Care Quality Commission listing https://www.cqc.org.uk/loca... | |
| 3 | 2025-07-05 09:48 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 165479061 by SmithyScotland @ 2025-04-26 18:47 | 1 | 2025-07-04 18:14 | SomeoneElse | Hello,If this is no longer a dentist then I guess the healthcare=dentist tag should also be removed?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-07-04 19:00 | SmithyScotland ♦13 | I seem to remember this place looked long term shut, possibly a note on the window. A few websites say the place is still open however in that location. Not sure what the story is to be honest. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-04 19:03 | SmithyScotland ♦13 | Have crated a note and requested this building is checkedhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4839193 | |
| 4 | 2025-07-04 19:07 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 156408342 by osmuser63783 @ 2024-09-09 18:23 | 1 | 2025-07-04 18:37 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've added a name:sg to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/node/3950817291 - is that correct (Sango - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639_language_codes ) or should it actually be gd (Scottish Gaelic)?Best Regards,Andy |
| 166078356 by cart0 @ 2025-05-10 17:01 | 1 | 2025-07-04 18:20 | SomeoneElse | Hello,If https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/node/6013943584 has shut then I guess that the "healthcare" tag should be removed?Best Regards,Andy |
| 165418345 by LivingWithDragons @ 2025-04-25 11:03 | 1 | 2025-07-04 18:18 | SomeoneElse | Hello,https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12784056908#map=20/56.4591569/-2.9774313 has both disused:amenity and healthcare tags - I guess it needs adjusting one way or the others?Best Regards,Andy |
| 105646447 by user_5589 @ 2021-05-31 22:24 | 1 | 2025-07-04 17:47 | SomeoneElse | Hello, in this changeset https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/237206161 had "public_transport=platform" added, but according to the note it's out of use?Best Regards,Andy |
| 166867809 by MihaelIvanjek @ 2025-05-28 10:05 | 1 | 2025-05-30 09:09 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What was the source of these changes?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-05-30 15:50 | MihaelIvanjek ♦13 | Hi! I used signs that I found on bing streetside indicating a weight limit of 7.5 along with an exception for access. One set of two signs can be found about right where Ince Lane meets Ash Road, and the other is very slightly down Ince Lane where Orchard Park Lane meets it. Hope that explains it!... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-30 16:46 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - are these technically maxweight or maxweightrating?The latter is probably the more common (designed to keep hgvs off some roads, whether loaded or not), but the former also occurs (e.g. on weak bridges - where you also see axle limits). | |
| 4 | 2025-05-30 17:31 | MihaelIvanjek ♦13 | Perhaps the more "correct" tag would be maxweightrating, however, before we (OptimoRoute*) started mapping in the UK we looked into how it's been done so far - and generally from what we saw mappers up until now used maxweight for the vast majority of signs, while reserving maxweightr... | |
| 5 | 2025-07-03 10:02 | SomeoneElse | For info, you might be interested in the forum topic https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maxweight-meaning-and-maxweightrating/132190/1 . | |
| 168300556 by TheSwavu @ 2025-06-30 09:36 | 1 | 2025-06-30 19:41 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 168283714 by catgirl mapper @ 2025-06-29 21:27 | 1 | 2025-06-29 21:32 | SomeoneElse | Hello, and welcome to OSM!When you say you "checked on construction* did you actually viait or have personal knowledge of this localation?Aerial (and streetside) imagery will not be helpful for finding out what the current state of construction is - it is by definition out of date.Best Re... |
| 2 | 2025-06-30 05:25 | catgirl mapper ♦3 | I did not actually visit the location but the satellite imagery shows it under construction in 2023 and the last checked date was in 2015 so I moved the last checked date to the day that the satellite imagery was taken. It is possible that it is completed now but I can't make that change. | |
| 168280869 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-06-29 19:54 | 1 | 2025-06-29 20:37 | SomeoneElse | Burley in Wharfdale, from survey 15/06/2025, ts1994b |
| 167441092 by Adam Edwards @ 2025-06-10 11:59 | 1 | 2025-06-13 09:42 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Just wondered - is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13113383#map=16/51.80928/-0.03301 part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/31640#map=16/51.80928/-0.03301 (or does the main route continue along the canal, past the NCN milepost https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/160080113 )?B... |
| 2 | 2025-06-13 12:15 | Adam Edwards ♦13 | The Sustrans info is the official route is south of the primary school via Ware station and Crane Mead, but also the section along side the canal up to the High Street Bridge. The tow path from High Street westwards has been delisted as it's very narrow with a very poor surface. The section f... | |
| 3 | 2025-06-13 12:18 | Adam Edwards ♦13 | I've removed the incorrect highlight from the northern section of Station Road. I'm cycling here on Monday to add stick on signs where needed in my role as the local Sustrans Volunteer Coordinator. | |
| 4 | 2025-06-13 12:20 | Adam Edwards ♦13 | Should add this makes the mile post redundant. You can see the Sustrans official routes here: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/national-cycle-network/ | |
| 5 | 2025-06-13 12:21 | Adam Edwards ♦13 | A bit of context: Sustrans reviewed it's routes four years ago and set higher safety standards for traffic and accessibility. Routes which fail these tests have been deleted. | |
| 6 | 2025-06-13 12:53 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for that!Does that mean that the ways that are part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13113383 could perhaps be moved to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/31640 ?There are a few other NCN routes that have several pieces like this (not for reasons of length), but I suspect tha... | |
| 7 | 2025-06-15 13:00 | Adam Edwards ♦13 | Yes, that makes sense although that relation needs editing. NCN61 ends officially at Rye House, not Hoddesdon. I'll have a go sorting that. Off to ride the route tomorrow. | |
| 8 | 2025-06-29 13:37 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 167981446 by tomyak @ 2025-06-23 02:54 | 1 | 2025-06-29 13:17 | SomeoneElse | Hello tomyak,Please do use more descriptive changeset comments than just "updated" - it really will help other mappers to help you!Best Regards,Andy |
| 168182106 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-06-27 11:53 | 1 | 2025-06-28 08:53 | Wynndale ♦54 | You really should be using your position to set an example to other mappers instead of trolling the database like this. |
| 2 | 2025-06-28 10:18 | SomeoneElse | ? | |
| 155541805 by DWCORNE @ 2024-08-21 07:29 | 1 | 2025-06-24 22:42 | SomeoneElse | Hello,"Fareham Street" here has had "ford=yes" set here: https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1164013794 . I'm guessing that that was a mistake and some other tag was made?Best Regards,Andy |
| 167496010 by ICT_maps @ 2025-06-11 14:56 | 1 | 2025-06-11 15:50 | ilias_ ♦217 | Edits in the USA and Australia is crazy ngl |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 18:22 | muralito ♦2,022 | Hi. You changed amenity=ice_cream for fast_food in Australia. Did you verify it? It was on purpose or a mistake searching for the same name? | |
| 3 | 2025-06-11 18:26 | ilias_ ♦217 | I'm pretty sure the user simply updated the Wendy's to match the default preset tags, and Wendy's is indeed a fast_food. | |
| 4 | 2025-06-11 18:27 | InsertUser ♦446 | What is your basis for saying that the Australian Wendys is a burger place? This object was last edited in 2013 and the American burger chain seems to have opened its first Australian store earlier this year: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/wendys-opens-first-australian-store-40-... | |
| 5 | 2025-06-11 18:31 | ilias_ ♦217 | You're absolutely right, as I said the user seemingly updated instances of "Wendys" to the fast food chain "Wendy's", without actually checking each one. So you're right, that's actually Wendy's Milk Bar. It did have a typo before. | |
| 6 | 2025-06-11 20:30 | ICT_maps ♦1 | It's been fixed, as you all are also empowered to do. | |
| 7 | 2025-06-11 20:33 | ilias_ ♦217 | You are also empowered to check your edits when doing automated changes. | |
| 8 | 2025-06-23 12:07 | SomeoneElse | Hello,The iD editor's brand suggestions are just that - suggestions.Please don't apply them in places that you are not familiar with Quite a lot of the suggestions for brands have incorrect geographical areas or are just rubbish. The onus is always on the person accepting the suggesti... | |
| 167833871 by Phút @ 2025-06-19 16:02 Active block | 1 | 2025-06-19 16:11 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!You've deleted a few houses here - are they no longer standing?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-06-21 06:53 | Supaplex ♦10,446 | It seems buildings still existhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167899987 | |
| 3 | 2025-06-21 10:35 | SomeoneElse | User is blocked now for other reasons https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18371 , DWG ticket 2025062010000323 . | |
| 167801325 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-06-18 21:52 | 1 | 2025-06-21 09:43 | SomeoneElse | Hello,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1396460767 was newly added in here, and looks like it should be added to the western bit of the C2C.When adding new ways via Vespucci I don't know of an easy way to check what relations they "Should have been part of", so I tend to review fo... |
| 165887084 by Bobbi123 @ 2025-05-06 11:24 | 1 | 2025-06-14 14:14 | SomeoneElse | If https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1384003260/history was shown on a map above other features despite being underground I'd suggest using a different map! |
| 2 | 2025-06-14 14:14 | SomeoneElse | Wenn https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1384003260/history auf einer Karte über anderen Merkmalen angezeigt würde, obwohl es sich unterirdisch befindet, würde ich die Verwendung einer anderen Karte vorschlagen! | |
| 167456642 by Bamamba85 @ 2025-06-10 17:43 | 1 | 2025-06-10 17:50 | SomeoneElse | Hello Bamamba85 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!I think your previous changeset comment might have got a bit "stuck" (this doesn't really look like "Updating golf course features"). Using changeset comments that explains what you are doing helps other people to help you.If... |
| 167264510 by NTTrailsNTH @ 2025-06-06 12:27 | 1 | 2025-06-08 10:21 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!It looks like a couple of gaps got introduced into the North Cheshire Way here (it's a bit tricky seeing what is a member of what relation in Vespucci (and sometimes the names don't appear properly there!). The gaps can be seen at https://overpass-turb... |
| 44318426 by pezza10 @ 2016-12-11 09:32 | 1 | 2025-05-31 09:56 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I think that something has gone wrong with the data here. On e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4548877130 I'd expect "diameter_crown" to be a number but it is instead "width: 2.0; color: green;". Maybe a json conversion went wrong?There are 289 of these: ht... |
| 166992058 by 최이두두두두 @ 2025-05-30 22:14 | 1 | 2025-05-31 09:42 | SomeoneElse | Hello 최이두두두두 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!Please do slow down when you are mapping things.It's clear that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056097 is actually supposed to be rectangular and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056100 is more than one building.You can make... |
| 2 | 2025-05-31 09:43 | SomeoneElse | 안녕하세요, 최이두두두두님, OpenStreetMap에 오신 것을 환영합니다!지도를 제작하실 때는 속도를 늦춰주세요.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056097은 실제로 직사각형이어야 하고, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056100은 건물 여러 개... | |
| 166966786 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-05-30 11:31 | 1 | 2025-05-30 15:01 | SomeoneElse | No there isn't |
| 166623567 by Ruari Byers @ 2025-05-22 17:34 | 1 | 2025-05-30 08:59 | SomeoneElse | Hello,How does the England Coast Path get across the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11738490#map=19/51.131325/1.340773 ? Does it go up to the northwest and then back?Best Regards,Andy |
| 166829070 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-05-27 14:03 | 1 | 2025-05-27 22:53 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 15567543 by frodrigo @ 2013-04-01 12:52 | 1 | 2016-10-19 23:01 | SK53 ♦864 | Just discovered your Bordeaux tree import (when I saw trees in Bordeaux I had a sneaky feeling I knew who might have done it).A couple of notes: specifically about species=Acer saccharinum.You have placed the cultivar name in the taxon tag. I think best practice is to follow the example of V... |
| 2 | 2025-05-26 09:26 | SomeoneElse | Are you sure that the height and diameter of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2242260005/history are correct? It's apparently a London Plane that is 5 times wider than in is high. Are you sure that that that diameter number isn't a circumference? | |
| 3 | 2025-05-27 13:14 | SK53 ♦864 | Quick use of the measurement panel in iD suggests 10 metres is a more reasonable value, although the tree crowns are not uniformly round. It's worth binning values (e.g. using R) with this sort of data to find obvious outliers (Stereo first noticed peculiar values with Belfast tree open data. ... | |
| 4 | 2025-06-12 10:29 | ivanbranco ♦2,698 | Another odd one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2242250499/historyA Quercus robur with a height of 24 metres and a circumference of 0.01 metres.I’d expect the circumference to be around 3–4 metres, or the height to be at most 9 metres. | |
| 32741250 by flaimo @ 2015-07-19 20:32 | 1 | 2025-05-26 09:21 | SomeoneElse | Are you sure that the size values for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3658274203 are correct?circumference=0.04 and height=12 are plausible for a Silver Birch, but diameter_crown=77 is 6 times wider than it's high - unlikely for a Silver Birch, and unlikely to be supported by that 4cm-wide... |
| 2 | 2025-06-09 23:01 | ivanbranco ♦2,698 | I noticed other weird values while looking at Acer platanoides trees:https://www.osm.org/node/3658207772according to monumentaltrees.com (https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/trees/acerplatanoides/records/) the tallest Acer platanoides is 37.90m, this one is 40m. Maybe OSM data is correct, who k... | |
| 150358724 by ivanbranco @ 2024-04-22 17:35 | 1 | 2025-05-26 09:17 | SomeoneElse | The tree https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10162104746/history seems to be a funny shape for a Sycamore - it's 12m high with a 30cm or so diameter trunk (which is fair enough) but has a crown diameter of 65m - 5.5 times larger than its height. Sycamores usually are not that shape... |
| 2 | 2025-05-26 14:53 | ivanbranco ♦2,698 | I edited these trees while focusing on fixing incorrect circumference values in imports (e.g. see also: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/possible-error-in-linz-tree-import/113040), so it's definitely possible other errors from the import went unnoticed. I didn’t catch this one at the... | |
| 128555554 by B1000 @ 2022-11-06 13:40 | 1 | 2025-05-26 09:17 | SomeoneElse | The tree https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10162104746/history seems to be a funny shape for a Sycamore - it's 12m high with a 30cm or so diameter trunk (which is fair enough) but has a crown diameter of 65m - 5.5 times larger than its height. Sycamores usually are not that shape... |
| 162203782 by Sforzando9500 @ 2025-02-06 11:12 | 1 | 2025-05-25 21:49 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Are the names of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/560045874 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12561176892 really "Brock Crags (Wainwright)" and "Brock Crags (summit)"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Crags just has "Brock_Crags" (with one named, and ... |
| 22244970 by krd_mapper @ 2014-05-10 07:48 | 1 | 2025-05-25 13:57 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I know it was a long time ago, but just spotted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2847593295 - what battle actually was it?Best Regards,Andy |
| 166126886 by wombatmaper @ 2025-05-11 21:25 | 1 | 2025-05-11 22:13 | archie ♦1,304 | Vad är anledningen till att du raderat det här hindret? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1364264707/history |
| 2 | 2025-05-11 22:18 | wombatmaper ♦63 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11638849003/historybarriärtaggen var inte på en nod utan på en väg | |
| 3 | 2025-05-11 22:25 | archie ♦1,304 | Så, barriers får inte vara på en linje (way); speciellt om det rör sig om flera stycken? Kan du belägga (bevisa) detta?Jag ser något annat: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier | |
| 4 | 2025-05-11 22:25 | archie ♦1,304 | Dessutom raderade du info om avstånd mellan stenarna. Inte bra alls. | |
| 5 | 2025-05-11 22:30 | archie ♦1,304 | du raderade även accessrättigheterna som därmed försvårar routingen. | |
| 6 | 2025-05-11 22:31 | wombatmaper ♦63 | verkligen bra hitta, jag fixade de värden jag tog bort | |
| 7 | 2025-05-11 22:32 | archie ♦1,304 | det har jag redan gjort | |
| 8 | 2025-05-11 22:33 | wombatmaper ♦63 | Noden i skärningspunkten mellan barriären och stigen var inte taggad, vilket innebär att navigationsprogram inte kan tolka den. | |
| 9 | 2025-05-11 22:34 | wombatmaper ♦63 | Jag antar att vi kan behålla barriärvägen, men det verkar bara som dubbel information eftersom den är så kort | |
| 10 | 2025-05-11 22:39 | archie ♦1,304 | När det rör sig om flera barriers på platsen och uppgift om avstånd dem emellan finns ger det ingen som helst mening att rita barrier som nod, men desto mera att rita barrier som way. | |
| 11 | 2025-05-11 22:44 | wombatmaper ♦63 | från wikin:Start by placing a tag barrier=block on a node node that's part of an existing way to indicate where the barrier is. | |
| 12 | 2025-05-23 21:26 | SomeoneElse | Hello wombatmaper,"barrier=block" absolutely can be on a way rather than a node. Have a look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/barrier=block - as you can see, there are 1000s of them mapped that way already.In addition, please use better changeset comments than "resolved ... | |
| 13 | 2025-05-23 21:57 | wombatmaper ♦63 | Hej SomeoneElse, thank you for your feedback. However I still believe that a node is much more appropriate here since the vast majority of these ways are longer, and block off two different areas where they function more as a fence. None of the ones I checked even intersected with a path / road. How... | |
| 14 | 2025-05-23 22:01 | wombatmaper ♦63 | Also note the "resolved" tags in my changeset. It seemed redundant to reiterate them in the changeset comment, but I will do so in the future | |
| 15 | 2025-05-23 22:06 | SomeoneElse | Perhaps you could take a photo of the affected area? | |
| 16 | 2025-05-23 22:15 | wombatmaper ♦63 | I did not take a photo when I was there in person. Google has a picture but I am not sure if posting it here would be considered a copyright issue, since I am mapping based on local knowledge, and only trying to prove my point I guess? | |
| 17 | 2025-05-24 06:45 | archie ♦1,304 | There is nothing unusual or special at all with this blockage or with this road. Routing with barrier-ways works beautifully with routing-servers on osm.org, thats why people use barrier-ways. Just test it and see for yourself and don't spread fakes (or are you refering to your own routing-ser... | |
| 18 | 2025-05-24 09:42 | SomeoneElse | Actually, one more thing, "resolved issued detected by id " suggests that you think the suggestions that iD offers (including things like operator/brand, wikidata, etc.) are correct. My experience is that often they are not.I personally would not accept any suggestion by iD unless I per... | |
| 19 | 2025-05-24 10:05 | wombatmaper ♦63 | @archie I suggest reading the wiki, "Rendering of a map is the process of making a visual image on the basis of raw geospatial data and tags. ". A router is not a renderer. Just read it and see for yourself and don't spread fakes. | |
| 20 | 2025-05-24 10:09 | wombatmaper ♦63 | Indeed, some of the iD fixes are problematic, I have contributed some fixes in the past to the iD repository but other ones, such as the misspeling of "Göteborgs Stad" still need to be fixed. I generally only resolve obvious fixes to places I have already been. | |
| 21 | 2025-05-24 10:11 | SomeoneElse | (with regard to the wiki) that's supposed to document how people map, not tell people how to map.There are many, many wiki pages that contradict other wiki pages.It's a useful guide, but all it tells you is that "the last person that edited that page thought X". | |
| 166109780 by user_5359 @ 2025-05-11 13:50 | 1 | 2025-05-23 21:13 | SomeoneElse | Looks like spam to me |
| 166588431 by b-jazz-bot @ 2025-05-21 22:24 | 1 | 2025-05-23 21:12 | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12825008634/history looks like spam to me :) |
| 166647833 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-05-23 10:04 | 1 | 2025-05-23 12:11 | SomeoneElse | In here I've changed the Dales High Way route up Shipley Glen - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7152429#map=16/53.85060/-1.80649 . The previous route may once have existed, but peters out north of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1388968997 which is a bit of a scramble back up. |
| 165091458 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-04-17 23:06 | 1 | 2025-05-23 09:13 | Paul Berry ♦124 | Thanks for picking this up. I've now fixed this on changeset #166645811. |
| 2 | 2025-05-23 12:07 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 166516019 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-05-20 10:01 | 1 | 2025-05-21 22:42 | SomeoneElse | Hello,In the last month, a few gaps have opened up in the Robin Hood Way by the lake at Clumber Before: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/24CK Now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1652131#map=15/53.26818/-1.05649My recollection is that there isn't a lot of Robin Hood Way signage here, ... |
| 2 | 2025-05-27 14:59 | NTTrailsMEE ♦2 | Hi Andy,Thanks for pointing this out. Should all be correct now. | |
| 165909049 by Wookey @ 2025-05-06 19:37 | 1 | 2025-05-19 19:47 | SomeoneElse | Oops - somehow "utility=gas; marker=pedestal" got added to the (unfortunately closed) Aldwark Arms. Maybe a preset accidentially got added in Vespucci? :) |
| 2 | 2025-05-19 20:20 | Wookey ♦21 | Thanks for spotting that. Yes, Vespucci is prone to auto-including tags from a totally separate earlier edit.I did wonder whether to mark the pub closed. It seemed to be, but there was also no notice or boarding so it might have been a one-day emergency. | |
| 166217758 by jpolvto @ 2025-05-13 18:22 | 1 | 2025-05-13 19:36 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Heya, thanks for adding the ID, but it’s actually already correctly set on the superroute relation which links all these route relations. The wikidata ID for the entire Pennine Way isn’t quite correct to use on individual parts of the route, so I’ve undone this change (https://www.... |
| 2 | 2025-05-13 19:36 | gurglypipe ♦873 | You can see the superroute relation here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4080347 | |
| 3 | 2025-05-13 23:08 | jpolvto ♦3 | Hey! I’m aware, unfortunately this doesn’t work for Wikivoyage. I have to add the wiki data id for the individual stages if I want the trail to render. It’s a known bug (and workaround). I don’t like it either, and I’m trying to have it fixed. This is the only way we ca... | |
| 4 | 2025-05-14 07:18 | jpolvto ♦3 | As an alternative, I can add all of the individual stages to wikidata, but I think that’s worse for everyone. I have done this in the past though. | |
| 5 | 2025-05-14 09:09 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Ah, that makes sense. Can you point me to the discussion/issue report about getting the renderer fixed please? | |
| 6 | 2025-05-14 13:19 | jpolvto ♦3 | Can be found here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T388303Please post! I'd love to get this fixed, the more people point this issue out, the better. | |
| 7 | 2025-05-17 11:03 | SomeoneElse | Another option (something that I mentioned in the forum) would be to use a different map in the wikivoyage articles. The one currently on https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Pennine_Way is basically a road map and really not useful at any level of detail. | |
| 8 | 2025-05-17 12:57 | jpolvto ♦3 | Hi, thanks for the input. These IDs were added to improve data integration with Wikivoyage and other tools that rely on linking OSM features with structured data. This is common practice across many named routes and not unique to this trail. If you believe there's a broader issue with this appr... | |
| 9 | 2025-05-17 13:49 | SomeoneElse | Re your comment above "... let's raise it on the tagging list or the relevant proposal thread to get broader community input", for the avoidance of doubt in the comment that you replied to I already said "... something that I mentioned in the forum".For completeness, tha... | |
| 10 | 2025-05-17 14:45 | jpolvto ♦3 | While you did mention it on the forum, this was not the topic of the thread. Responding to it there risks derailing the thread. If you feel like the Wikivoyage/OpenStreetMap integration should be questioned, and, if I interpret this correctly, screenshots of Waymarked Trails should be used instead, ... | |
| 166280406 by KKS @ 2025-05-14 23:29 | 1 | 2025-05-16 07:59 | SomeoneElse | Hello KKS,Please do write a bit of an explanation about what you have changed in a changeset comment.It makes things so much easier for everyone else.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-05-16 08:00 | SomeoneElse | Привіт, KKS,Будь ласка, напишіть невелике пояснення щодо внесених змін у коментарі до набору змін.Це значно полегшить життя всім іншим.З найкращими побажаннями,... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-16 20:57 | KKS ♦222 | Hi @SomeoneElse, it's just fixing stuff changeset after weird people who mapping with imagine data. After mapping I saw some people do weird things and put it to osmcha filter "random weird people", and time by time checking and fixing what they do. Someone put oneway=yes on road wit... | |
| 166160436 by diogenesCoello @ 2025-05-12 16:09 | 1 | 2025-05-14 19:35 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!I'm guessing that the name of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1385843234 isn't really ddcm8733_inun , and it also looks from the imagery like it is a rectangular building, but it has not been drawn as one. You can square the corners of buildings by p... |
| 2 | 2025-05-14 19:35 | SomeoneElse | ¡Hola y bienvenido a OpenStreetMap!Supongo que el nombre de https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1385843234 no es realmente ddcm8733_inun, y en las imágenes parece un edificio rectangular, pero no se ha dibujado como tal. Puedes cuadrar las esquinas de los edificios presionando "q&q... | |
| 54163580 by SomeoneElse @ 2017-11-28 23:19 | 1 | 2025-05-11 07:02 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1825448775/history has shop = builders_merchant that was added in this editshop=builders_merchant ? Is it https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=doityourself or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=trade + https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/... |
| 2 | 2025-05-13 21:27 | SomeoneElse | No idea, I've never been there - I just added the underscore! | |
| 166150894 by jeslop @ 2025-05-12 12:45 | 1 | 2025-05-12 17:15 | SomeoneElse | For info, two accounts were working together here. I've reverted the other one in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166163077 and have forced through the remaining reverts in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166163147 |
| 166126842 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-05-11 21:23 | 1 | 2025-05-11 22:46 | SomeoneElse | ts1877a and ts1878b.Around Yorkshire Green construction site. |
| 36491506 by brianh @ 2016-01-10 20:54 Active block | 1 | 2025-05-11 15:30 | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5848094/history has been a "place=locality" since basically forever, but I don't think that that is correct, is it? |
| 166025400 by wombatmaper @ 2025-05-09 12:17 | 1 | 2025-05-11 10:39 | SomeoneElse | This clearly isn't correct. "Just Tyres" sells (as the name implies) "Just Tyres".You can see what the other shops are by using overpass: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/23Tx . "shop=tyres" seems to be the favourite, so I'll set this one to that. |
| 2 | 2025-05-11 10:42 | SomeoneElse | Also - if you have changed any other examples in this way those will be wrong too. Please investigate each one and correct if necessary. There were 10 a couple of weeks ago: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/23Ty . | |
| 3 | 2025-05-11 11:34 | wombatmaper ♦63 | Good point, I went through them and fixed a few: 2 incorrect tags, 2 closed stores. Thanks for the notice. I will remove this tag from my fix list for future reference | |
| 166065512 by sjorford @ 2025-05-10 11:41 | 1 | 2025-05-11 10:27 | SomeoneElse | Somewhat confusingly, the service road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/733298699 was part of the Clwydian Hills relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10757713 and extending it meant that that boundary was no longer a valid polygon. I've cut it in too and removed the end part from t... |
| 2 | 2025-05-11 18:15 | sjorford ♦6 | Thanks for the fix! This seems to be part of a larger problem, as there are many highways that are part of protected_area relations - see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/23UGNot sure what to do about this - ideally boundaries shouldn't include other objects like highways because it's easy ... | |
| 166085279 by DaveF @ 2025-05-10 20:24 | 1 | 2025-05-10 21:05 | SomeoneElse | Thanks!I spotted this again a couple of days ago and completely forgot that I'd commented on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156022134 7 months ago but never got around to fixing it. |
| 78964227 by mapman44 @ 2019-12-28 20:05 | 1 | 2025-05-10 12:59 | SomeoneElse | I'm slowly working through these and actually removing the Google-sourced IP. |
| 110081197 by Falsernet @ 2021-08-22 22:38 | 1 | 2025-05-10 10:30 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What is the source of the name "Rockingstone Moss Interchange"? I've used it many times, and have never seen this sign. The only examples I can find are basically fantasy (SABRE) or pages that use OSM as a source.Best Regards,Andy |
| 128492995 by CjMalone @ 2022-11-04 16:57 | 1 | 2025-05-09 12:14 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Are you sure that the "naptan:AtcoCode" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5784071207/history is correct? This appears to be in the museum; I'm guessing the code is for Didcot Parkway https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6605149662 .Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-05-09 12:39 | CjMalone ♦233 | I can't see 910GDIDCOTP in the current official data. I don't thinkhave a snap shot from 3 years ago to see what it was listed as.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6605149662#map=19/51.611220/-1.242517is correct as it currently is "9100DIDCOTP". | |
| 165369680 by Numbergod @ 2025-04-24 09:42 | 1 | 2025-05-05 10:21 | SomeoneElse | I suspect that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/521292120/history is not any sort of storage tank - by the name and the location I suspect it is a filter bed in a sewage works. |
| 165778661 by Yog Sot @ 2025-05-03 22:06 | 1 | 2025-05-04 16:27 | SomeoneElse | Please use sensible changeset comments that explain what you have actually done, especially when doing reverts. |
| 2 | 2025-05-04 19:49 | Yog Sot ♦236 | oh i'm sorry, in essence there were lots of missing cycleway and footway highways that made it impossible to navigate em. very tedious and hard to job to go every single way that was improperly edited there. But if i'm given IDs of ways that might be okey, i can check em out no prob! | |
| 165227338 by Numbergod @ 2025-04-21 08:59 | 1 | 2025-05-04 09:58 | SomeoneElse | Hello Numbergod,Is was wondering what the changes to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103827772 were here? The changeset comment is just "Fixed various issues"; what actually was the change here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-05-04 10:05 | Numbergod ♦10 | Hi Andy,It was fixes to a lot of random outdated tags in RapId and road realignment mostly. Just small easy fixes to clear out the queue to get to the important stuff later. Nothing of note, just following the Pareto Principle. | |
| 3 | 2025-05-04 10:22 | SomeoneElse | This one had `landuse=conservation` (which is relatively rarely used, but see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dconservation ) - that sometimes means "there is something else going on, beyond just being a nature reserve", or it might be "it's a tag left over from ... | |
| 4 | 2025-05-04 11:25 | Numbergod ♦10 | Hi Andy,I hear what you're saying. I've had good experiences with the tool, but there does seem to be a few small UK issues. We may need to look into them further. I think it's probably just a few parameters that need tweaking. I don't think it meets the threshold for aut... | |
| 5 | 2025-05-04 12:50 | SomeoneElse | To be clear - if you're performing automated tag changes (e.g. from "landuse=something" to some other tag) without any other investigation) then that's an automated edit and needs to be discussed.If you're changing "highway=pirmary" to "highway=primary"... | |
| 6 | 2025-05-04 16:51 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | @Numbergod - I've commented on several of your changesets where it's abundantly clear that you accepted Rapid's (incorrect) suggestion without question. That is an undiscussed automated/mechanical edit. You have not had the courtesy to reply to any of my changeset comments, or made an... | |
| 7 | 2025-05-05 08:47 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-removal-of-crossing-markings-yes-tags-introduced-in-undiscussed-automated-edits/129614 | |
| 165646193 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-30 18:02 | 1 | 2025-04-30 18:02 | SomeoneElse | A web search right now (Google or DDG) only finds (a) OSM (b) SABRE and (c) other user-contributed data such as "Litter on slip road verge. Ducker Holt Interchange, Marr, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, England, DN5 7AS, United Kingdom". |
| 165473288 by hexplore @ 2025-04-26 16:25 | 1 | 2025-04-27 13:23 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I wonder if you might be able to fill in some of the gaps that there are in https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=6490318 ?(you can use https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6490318 to "re-analyse" after fixing some to see what is left)Best Regards,... |
| 2 | 2025-04-27 17:11 | hexplore ♦9 | Hi Andy, thanks a lot for catching that, it's fixed now. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-27 21:49 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 4 | 2025-04-28 10:10 | hexplore ♦9 | Oh actually I meant to ask, how did you notice? Sounds like there may be something useful for me to bookmark. | |
| 5 | 2025-04-28 11:51 | SomeoneElse | Here's the diary entry:https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/397310when one changes a cron job on the server that has the database for https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html sends me an email if relations might have a new gap, likeChange in relation components f... | |
| 165514799 by JamJar II @ 2025-04-27 16:50 | 1 | 2025-04-27 16:55 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 164812350 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-04-11 11:54 | 1 | 2025-04-26 16:18 | motogs ♦27 | The spellings of 2 stops corrected in changeset 165472874 following survey and photos |
| 2 | 2025-04-27 13:20 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 165466061 by michaelinredhill @ 2025-04-26 13:32 | 1 | 2025-04-27 13:05 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like this edit might have created a gap in the outer way of 8815682, the High Weald National Landscape relation. I've joined it up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165504890#map=20/51.1964417/0.1558513 .You can check relations by using the "validate" ... |
| 165493411 by JamJar II @ 2025-04-27 07:55 | 1 | 2025-04-27 12:54 | SomeoneElse | Hello, a quick question about the Rob Roy Way:There's a bit of a gap currently at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/189465#map=18/56.527225/-4.111209 . Do you know if that's deliberate (maybe the bridge can't be used for some reason) or accidental and just needs joining up?B... |
| 2 | 2025-04-27 16:45 | JamJar II ♦12 | Hi Andy,Looks like, after splitting that section to allow the braid, I missed the re-adding. I will fix that now!Thanks for spotting!James | |
| 3 | 2025-04-27 16:51 | JamJar II ♦12 | Ok, should be fixed now at Ardtalnaig. Let me know if I have missed anything else. | |
| 163844681 by Demi God Perseus @ 2025-03-20 04:59 | 1 | 2025-04-25 14:33 | SomeoneElse | Is this definitely open?Other sources suggest it may have closed late last year.Hopefully it has reopened :) |
| 2 | 2025-04-25 14:48 | Demi God Perseus ♦1 | Thank you for your interest hopefully as a Bitcoiner.We have been making repair and cleaning since 30th of December 2024. It is our intention to open in maybe 2 to 3 weeks on a limited basis as we have much work to carry out on the rest of the property. Initially we intend opening 10 am to 3 pm Mo... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-25 15:21 | SomeoneElse | Best of luck, and I'm sure I'll call in once you've opened.Today I'll have to carry on to the Cross Hills tap... | |
| 156420924 by JassKurn @ 2024-09-10 04:28 | 1 | 2025-04-18 10:49 | SomeoneElse | You didn't add it originally, but have you any idea what sort of building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51583113 is? It does match OS OpenData but doesn't match Bing imagery, suggesting that something might have been rebuilt in its place? |
| 2 | 2025-04-23 13:12 | JassKurn ♦154 | Hi,In summary, very large and very old outbuilding. Thick stone wall with corrugated rood. Typcial historic farm outbuilding found on Dartmoor. Associated with resdiential house to east which is missing from OSM.I do know the area, and ironically have been delayed answering because I'v... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-24 17:25 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - makes sense. I've changed it to "farm_auxiliary". | |
| 165242563 by mstrbrid @ 2025-04-21 14:18 | 1 | 2025-04-24 11:47 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | Hello,It looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1379326419 had been accidentally missed from NCN4 - I've added it back.Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-24 11:54 | mstrbrid ♦26 | Cheers, looks like I'll have to do the same for the EV1 route when I get back to JOSM today. That'll teach me for trying to use Vespucci! | |
| 3 | 2025-04-24 12:01 | SomeoneElse | EV1 should be OK here now: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=9540148 .Also EV2 http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=5479822 . | |
| 4 | 2025-04-24 13:57 | mstrbrid ♦26 | Brill, thank you | |
| 45233605 by Will Russack @ 2017-01-17 04:56 | 1 | 2023-12-20 18:25 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 7(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228759987 (and also on a couple of other changes too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google... |
| 2 | 2025-04-24 10:13 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for updating this to say that the change was based on local knowledge. | |
| 50290961 by KaizaWolf @ 2017-07-14 18:34 | 1 | 2023-12-20 18:31 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 6(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/507631409 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's lic... |
| 2 | 2025-04-24 10:09 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for confirming local knowledge here in the update to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/507631409/history .(to anyone else spotting this - it's clearly visible on OSM-compatible imagery too).Local knowledge I presume also applies to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/498577935/history ... | |
| 16143753 by obvdosm @ 2013-05-15 19:50 | 1 | 2023-12-20 18:58 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191593922 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's li... |
| 2 | 2025-04-24 09:50 | SomeoneElse | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165369722 and redacted | |
| 165307794 by TheSwavu @ 2025-04-22 23:46 | 1 | 2025-04-23 11:16 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 114504522 by Narod @ 2021-12-03 03:20 | 1 | 2025-04-16 00:33 | SomeoneElse | It looks like something has gone a bit wrong here - the merge of the building and the roof has created https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13505281/history which is "building=roof;yes". |
| 2 | 2025-04-18 09:44 | Narod ♦3 | Thanks for spotting, have corrected that now. Is it maybe better to actually have them split up though? They're both part of the petrol station but they are unique structures so to speak | |
| 3 | 2025-04-21 15:58 | SomeoneElse | There are a few options - one is to keep them as a multipolygon but to remove the "building" tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13505281/history and add "building=yes" to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152963307 and "building=roof" to https://www.openstr... | |
| 165231622 by BCNorwich @ 2025-04-21 10:30 | 1 | 2025-04-21 12:51 | SomeoneElse | I'd be really helpful to be a bit more descriptive in changeset comments - "tweak areas" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here as this is actually a revert using JOSM's revert plugin... |
| 158533987 by extua @ 2024-10-30 10:16 | 1 | 2025-04-18 23:03 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Should https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1329335285 perhaps be "operator=SSE" rather than building=sse"?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-21 07:54 | extua ♦4 | hi Andy, yes that sounds correct, can you change it? | |
| 3 | 2025-04-21 11:51 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165235237 | |
| 137254798 by chris_debian @ 2023-06-12 17:59 | 1 | 2025-04-19 23:19 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm a bit confused by the change here. Previously https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/881142231/history was an area runway and it didn't have a linear component. The MR challenge said to add the linear runway and change the area to area:aeroway=runway, but you didn't do that -... |
| 64531804 by MichaelCollinson @ 2018-11-15 14:32 | 1 | 2025-04-18 18:24 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What is a "building=barb"?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/644918873#map=20/54.1568336/-2.1386904&layers=HCheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-19 15:51 | MichaelCollinson ♦53 | Andy, corrected now ("barn"). Thanks. Mike | |
| 3 | 2025-04-19 16:10 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - obvious really! | |
| 158935998 by beza208 @ 2024-11-09 14:18 | 1 | 2025-04-19 05:09 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I think that something gone a bit wrong here.After this changeset, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1287508458/history is aligned with the area of the agricultural building visible on aerial imagery, but the building type is "house (site of)" and the name seems a bit odd for an ... |
| 141210360 by b-unicycling @ 2023-09-13 12:54 | 1 | 2023-10-08 23:32 | VictorIE ♦911 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278367882building=cin ?Cimena? |
| 2 | 2023-10-09 00:44 | b-unicycling ♦242 | Very good question. No idea. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-18 18:02 | SomeoneElse | I've set it back to yes :) | |
| 4 | 2025-04-18 19:51 | VictorIE ♦911 | :) | |
| 153748321 by pmpjoseph @ 2024-07-09 14:55 | 1 | 2025-04-18 10:41 | SomeoneElse | Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!You've set https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1272898465/history to "building=closed". If it's still a pub building but the pub is closed, more appropriate would be "building=pub" and "disused:amenity=pub".Best Regards,\... |
| 164098263 by gomedia91 @ 2025-03-25 21:38 | 1 | 2025-04-17 21:21 | SomeoneElse | I'm guessing that "building=yesrunning_or_walking_while_listening_to_some_music_or_a_podcast_can_get_you_into_a_great_rhythm_-_please_just_be_careful_that_it_doesn’t_end_up_distracting_you._when_crossing_the_road,_temporarily_remove_your_headphones_and_avoid_interacting_with_your_ph&... |
| 164946860 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-04-14 16:16 | 1 | 2025-04-17 11:48 | SomeoneElse | Oops - I think that this might have created a gap in the Thames Down Link path - you can see that at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/115934#map=20/51.2696199/-0.3117511 .Are you OK to fill in the gap, or would you need any pointers to help doing that?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-17 12:52 | NTTrailsMEE ♦2 | Apologies, have fixed that now! | |
| 3 | 2025-04-17 13:29 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 160665569 by ruph @ 2024-12-27 08:24 | 1 | 2025-04-15 23:32 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | Hello,Lots of the houses in this changeset are "building=semidetached_house100752" - I suspect that is a typo?Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-16 07:39 | ruph ♦5 | Thank you very much for the hint. Yes, that is definitely a typo. How can I quickly and easily find the corresponding objects? | |
| 3 | 2025-04-16 13:21 | SomeoneElse | I was just looking at the rare values at https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:britain-and-ireland/keys/building#values .For example, for semidetached_house100752, a regular worldwide overpass query https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/22pe will work - you can zoom in and review the data and, if a simple &... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-18 09:18 | ruph ♦5 | Through the overpass query the objects were quickly identified. Thank you again for the helpful hint and the useful tips. | |
| 162203550 by recrayon @ 2025-02-06 11:07 | 1 | 2025-04-14 11:19 | SomeoneElse | Hello recrayon,You might like to join the discussion about naming oceans etc. at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/looking-for-the-pacific-ocean/128699 .You've said "as per wiki page", but which page, and where was the public discussion around that?I can see arguments on bot... |
| 2 | 2025-04-14 23:26 | Matija Nalis ♦116 | Given the node on which name tag was removed, referenced wiki is likely https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=ocean - but I haven't really seen a discussion on the issue either | |
| 164879083 by NFZANMNIM @ 2025-04-13 04:47 | 1 | 2025-04-13 05:41 | MelancholicSlav ♦21 | Can you explain how you are deriving the Persian names of places in Vietnam? Is there a source you are using? |
| 2 | 2025-04-13 06:02 | NFZANMNIM ♦73 | unfortunately there's really no Persian sources in existence on vietnam, at most there's tourist websites covering Phu Quoc Island, Hanoi, Saigon... I am doing a systematic and consistent transliteration into Persian (including some judgements to match Vietnamese phonology. For example &qu... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-13 08:20 | SomeoneElse | Hello - please do not make up names by transliteration in this way. Only map names that actually exist.If a data consumer wants to transliterate names, they can. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-13 09:39 | NFZANMNIM ♦73 | I don't agree, most (almost all) of the relationships I am updating, have Korean names written in the same way by other users (systematic and simple transliteration). Many of these places have Chinese inputs too, not from external sources but from cross-checking characters (done by other users)... | |
| 5 | 2025-04-13 13:11 | SomeoneElse | @NFZANMNIM What some wikipedia project does is irrelevant here. In fact, many data projects do link to wikidata's various language names via wikidata links - that is a perfectly sensible approach.The OSM wiki is clear: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Transliteration .There are ... | |
| 6 | 2025-04-14 04:29 | NFZANMNIM ♦73 | my point with korean was that i am not doing something new and unique. i'm doing what korean language users have done in updating the information in this area, for persian. | |
| 164825629 by Alex McKee @ 2025-04-11 16:56 | 1 | 2025-04-12 10:31 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Thanks for this. I'm guessing that the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69312#map=18/51.828983/-2.215376 is just "awaiting survey following completion of new housing estate" or similar?The view of the ROWmaps data (green lines at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/ma... |
| 2 | 2025-04-12 12:17 | Alex McKee ♦6 | Hi Andy, Yes, the Glevum Way across Winneycroft Farm is currently unclear. The order that suspended the footpaths created temporary rights of way around the edges of one of the fields but the Glevum Way itself hasn't yet been rerouted.I will be re-surveying the footpath between Painswick Ro... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-12 18:04 | Alex McKee ♦6 | Just a note that I resurveyed EUL 22 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164866807 and found somewhat mixed results on the ground. There are GW stickers on the temporary fencing showing part of the route but not other parts. It still runs across the small paddock between Winneycroft Lane and the... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-12 18:35 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - these things do sometimes get forgotten. | |
| 164506278 by kjm1511 @ 2025-04-04 12:39 | 1 | 2025-04-04 12:41 | NeisBot ♦2,300 | Hi kjm1511, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:- 8 highway(s)Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?\... |
| 2 | 2025-04-04 12:43 | kjm1511 ♦1 | These deletions are intentional, please remove. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-04 18:29 | NeisReview ♦936 | Thank you for your private message and also confirming that your deletions were intentional.However, do you know the following OSM wiki page? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F | |
| 4 | 2025-04-05 02:07 | MassCartog ♦122 | This change set along with the other two 164506799 164506908 look disastrous. kjm1511 Did you mean to leave random trail segments floating in the middle of the woods? also there are a TON of places trails almost meet, but are not connected. Looks like you took a hack saw to the trail network breakin... | |
| 5 | 2025-04-09 14:43 | MassCartog ♦122 | Thanks for fixing! | |
| 6 | 2025-04-12 14:55 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We've often worked with land managers about helping understand why "just deleting the data" may not be the best approach.The first and most obvious reason is that someone who doesn't know the history might just "re add... | |
| 164439187 by Thosewhoknow @ 2025-04-02 20:46 | 1 | 2025-04-03 13:12 | SomeoneElse | Hello, I think that this change might have caused a problem with a few relations. I've mentioned it on the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/relation-breakage-on-the-coastline-northeast-of-swords/128284 .To be clear, this absolutely isn't your fault - the problem is (a) the... |
| 2 | 2025-04-03 22:26 | Thosewhoknow ♦2 | I made an attempt to fix a few of them just now, and I’ll do more tomorrow. Sorry for that! | |
| 3 | 2025-04-05 17:38 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 4 | 2025-04-06 18:29 | Thosewhoknow ♦2 | I think I’ve fixed all the issues now, or at least most of them. | |
| 5 | 2025-04-12 14:37 | SomeoneElse | I think everything that was expected to reappear did, thanks. | |
| 164832131 by VictorIE @ 2025-04-11 20:04 | 1 | 2025-04-12 09:38 | SomeoneElse | It looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1376867539/history was accidentally created as a duplicate way of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366119186 in this changeset and as well as fixing some invalid relation that created others ("5446375 | Miltonsfields" fell out of the databas... |
| 2 | 2025-04-12 19:12 | VictorIE ♦911 | Thank you | |
| 164833829 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 21:04 | 1 | 2025-04-11 21:35 | SomeoneElse | Also a bit of cycleway near York college |
| 164473483 by phom_ @ 2025-04-03 16:24 | 1 | 2025-04-11 15:09 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've filled in a gap in the National Forest Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3748275#map=17/52.667166/-1.311819 . Does that look OK?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-11 15:15 | phom_ ♦1 | that's great thanks, mine were very rough! | |
| 3 | 2025-04-11 19:26 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | HelloAndy asked me to use my local knowledge and look at his fix to the Leicestershire Round.What I have spotted is that you have changed the track around the reservoir to a footway. This isn't really accurate, it can be used by service vehicles and mobility scooters. Footway implies someth... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-11 19:44 | phom_ ♦1 | Ah apologies, I misunderstood the definitions. Would you like me to restore them or are you guys sorting that?Tom | |
| 5 | 2025-04-11 21:23 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Hi Tom I am happy to fix it. There are a few other things I can fix at the same time.Cheers Phil | |
| 6 | 2025-04-12 07:00 | phom_ ♦1 | Hi PhilJust letting you know I have reverted it back to a track, but feel free to double check and fix those other thingsTom | |
| 7 | 2025-04-12 12:17 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Hi TomIs https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12716223148 really a kissing gate blocking the entire track? A kissing gate alongside a vehicle gate seems much more likely.Thanks Phil | |
| 8 | 2025-04-12 14:37 | phom_ ♦1 | Yes, you are correct. Should it be mapped as two separate nodes or just the one? Apologies for any mistakes, I'm still relatively new to all this, so feel free to keep correcting me!ThanksTom | |
| 164819689 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 14:42 | 1 | 2025-04-11 14:55 | SomeoneElse | See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 . |
| 164819730 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 14:42 | 1 | 2025-04-11 14:55 | SomeoneElse | See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 . |
| 164819986 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 14:48 | 1 | 2025-04-11 14:55 | SomeoneElse | See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 . |
| 164820160 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 14:53 | 1 | 2025-04-11 14:55 | SomeoneElse | See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 . |
| 164819850 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2025-04-11 14:45 | 1 | 2025-04-11 14:55 | SomeoneElse | See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 . |
| 164784198 by VLD292 @ 2025-04-10 19:11 | 1 | 2025-04-11 14:30 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 164587951 by Thosewhoknow @ 2025-04-06 12:15 | 1 | 2025-04-11 14:28 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! Both "Diocese of Dublin" have reappeared. |
| 164638210 by Balli Abokor @ 2025-04-07 14:35 | 1 | 2025-04-09 23:08 | SomeoneElse | Hello Balli Abokor,We'd love to have your point of view in the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-update-and-include-somalia-s-newest-state-in-the-map/128229 about the admin_level=4 objects in this area.You can login there with your OSM account.Best Regards,Andy ... |
| 164566414 by citrula @ 2025-04-05 19:55 | 1 | 2025-04-05 20:40 | Parrot Overhead ♦1 | Is there a tutorial on how to add an area based bysiness to the map? In otherwords, we do not have a storefront and do not want to impose on another business. |
| 2 | 2025-04-06 06:48 | Allison P ♦1,136 | OSM is a map of what's on the ground, not a business directory. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-08 22:16 | SomeoneElse | Hello Parrot Overhead,What Allison P says is entirely correct - things that don't have a physical storefront (or other things that don't exist in the physical world) don't belong in OSM at all.If you have more questions and would like to discuss it with the community in general, h... | |
| 164544480 by AndyC79 @ 2025-04-05 10:29 | 1 | 2025-04-05 17:22 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 164484446 by Upper Rusheen @ 2025-04-03 21:50 | 1 | 2025-04-04 11:14 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I think that this change might have accidentally deleted part of some townlands - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4211826 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4189619 .Do you need help fixing these?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-04 11:41 | Upper Rusheen ♦1 | Yes please Andy. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-04 12:12 | SomeoneElse | OK - that's now done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164504900 . I just added the missing relations to the stretch of untagged way in the gap, and checked that the relations were valid with JOSM's validator (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/406398 for th... | |
| 164427577 by AndyC79 @ 2025-04-02 15:43 | 1 | 2025-04-04 11:52 | SomeoneElse | Hello,There's a bit of a gap in the Mercian Way cycle route (NCN 45) at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/22602#map=18/51.072704/-1.797525 - I wondered if you knew where it went there?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-04 19:39 | AndyC79 ♦1 | So you now cycle through the coach park and then rejoin the route on the other side of the coach park. It's a short section on the road so I couldn't mark it as a cycle route. If there is a better way of marking it, let me know. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-04 19:40 | AndyC79 ♦1 | I'm gonna looking into it in more detail tomorrow. Also wondering if they've just moved it to the other side of the river... Will see what I can find out. Everything has changed in that area. | |
| 4 | 2025-04-05 10:37 | AndyC79 ♦1 | OK, linked up all of the routes properly again! | |
| 164452845 by NTMurlough @ 2025-04-03 08:28 | 1 | 2025-04-04 11:11 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I think that this change might have made a few relations invalid because they fell out of a rendering database last night - they crossed over each other so that they were no longer valid polygons. I fixed them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164502548 and added a new node to re... |
| 164393372 by 5155 @ 2025-04-01 20:42 | 1 | 2025-04-03 11:13 | SomeoneElse | Hello 5155 and welcome to OSM,What was the source of for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1373870321 ? It looks barely visible on Bing or ESRI imagery.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-04-03 13:29 | 5155 ♦2 | Hi, AndyYes, all changes are made based on the most up-to-date ESRI imagery.Regards. | |
| 3 | 2025-04-03 13:35 | SomeoneElse | What actually is that area? As I mentioned, for example osm.org/way/1373870321 ? It looks barely visible on Bing or ESRI imagery. | |
| 153500189 by Balli Abokor @ 2024-07-03 12:31 | 1 | 2025-04-03 09:46 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Please join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-update-and-include-somalia-s-newest-state-in-the-map/128229 to discuss the relation deleted here.Best Regards,Andy Townsend,On behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. |
| 164345097 by BarryMyles @ 2025-03-31 19:05 | 1 | 2025-04-02 13:02 | SomeoneElse | I think that this might have accidentally created a gap in the Norfolk AONB https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9471593 - I've rejoined it again. |
| 2 | 2025-04-02 18:22 | BarryMyles ♦10 | Oops, that was definitely me, and extremely clumsy. Terribly sorry and thanks for your quick fix. | |
| 3 | 2025-07-01 08:42 | Pink Duck ♦151 | Why add ' Village Sign' suffix to man_made village_sign name nodes? It’s not verifiable on ground. | |
| 164364458 by rajdhani @ 2025-04-01 09:03 | 1 | 2025-04-01 09:43 | SomeoneElse | Hello, Please contact the DWG by email at data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2023050810000254] changeset 164364458" so that we can add you to the ongoing discussion about this.Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group |
| 2 | 2025-04-01 16:08 | vtrtsxlegend ♦20 | Hi SomeoneElse, I will send the amail proposed by you so that I can be added to that discussion but also that I can share any information or discussion we then have regarding this issue. | |
| 163238150 by okwithmydecay @ 2025-03-05 10:16 | 1 | 2025-03-29 10:55 | SomeoneElse | Just wondered - how do you check that this isn't dedicated as a common? |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 11:39 | okwithmydecay ♦33 | Good question, and to be honest I can't remember how I determined this one. When it has a name, it's possible to do some online research to find out. Are you familiar with this area? | |
| 3 | 2025-03-29 12:27 | SomeoneElse | I'm not familiar with this area - I'm hoping that you were!I'm always puzzled by "what is officially a common and what isn't". In some case it's obviously signed as such on the ground (and you might have get some bylaws posted - one near me has that). Part of a... | |
| 4 | 2025-03-29 16:00 | okwithmydecay ♦33 | There is https://www.openaccess.naturalengland.org.uk/ and looking at the Woolton area there is no "access land"Though, I am not sure if we can use that as a data source? | |
| 5 | 2025-03-31 00:06 | SomeoneElse | Despite those maps being "© Crown Copyright and database right 2024" I believe that I've seen similar data released under OGL (and hence licence-compatible).I'm a bit confused by what I see at both "Natural England - Open Access maps" and "CROW Section 4 Con... | |
| 164294216 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-30 16:07 | 1 | 2025-03-30 16:09 | SomeoneElse | Not sure what the letting policy is; I'm guessing it's relatively short term and therefore would benefit from some sort of tourism tag; I local might want to add that. |
| 164292673 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-30 15:33 | 1 | 2025-03-30 15:36 | SomeoneElse | To contact the DWG about this edit, please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025032810000494] Clifton Lane".Note that "primary" was backed up by both OS OpenData StreetView (from 2016) and also last year's OS OpenMap Local, both of which are lic... |
| 163324578 by Birchell @ 2025-03-07 12:03 | 1 | 2025-03-08 12:21 | kartler175 ♦556 | Your updates have probably failed:https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-63.76396&lat=44.62007&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersectin... |
| 2 | 2025-03-08 12:34 | Birchell ♦2 | my updates appear to still be present, im not done yet lots to do updating the natural elements of five bridge lakes wilderness area. im attempting to better distinguish the natural landscape and remove the automated layout, however any assistance is appreciated | |
| 3 | 2025-03-08 12:36 | Birchell ♦2 | fairly new to the mapping of natural features. ive added and edited plenty of hiking trails, but any assistance or guidance would help | |
| 4 | 2025-03-30 15:23 | SomeoneElse | Editing CanVec-inspired relations is always a challenge - I mean, just look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1100815 :)It looks like iD didn't flag anything up here (which is not entirely a surprise).One thing that you may be able to do immediately after the edit is to check affect... | |
| 164106876 by Flynn Marquardt @ 2025-03-26 06:21 | 1 | 2025-03-30 12:07 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for fixing this. For info, there is still an issue with some of the other relations here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting tha... |
| 164073526 by dmgroom_ct @ 2025-03-25 11:54 | 1 | 2025-03-26 05:51 | vricciardulli ♦13 | Hello dmgroom_ct, I noticed that this changeset broke the relation between County Dublin (R282800) and Dublin.Are you sure your changes were correct? |
| 2 | 2025-03-26 10:06 | dmgroom_ct ♦51 | I'm pretty sure it was changes before mine which broke the relation. When I fixed overlapping coastline issues in this area I maintained relation members on the ways I directly edited. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-26 11:38 | vricciardulli ♦13 | In any case, this changeset fixed it https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164106876#map=19/53.260963/-6.110816&layers=N | |
| 4 | 2025-03-26 20:37 | SomeoneElse | Just for info - a bit of a curate's egg, this one: it looks like this changeset fixed one (part of a number affected by a different change by someone else last week) and broke two:11a12> -15480473 | Killiney DED 1971126d126< -13061512 | Killiney ED 1901169d168< -124983... | |
| 5 | 2025-03-30 12:05 | SomeoneElse | For completeness, there is still an issue here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting that people work together there. | |
| 163924121 by brianh @ 2025-03-21 20:50 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-22 15:32 | SomeoneElse | Hello, I think that this edit has broken some relations in Dublin:< -10709165 | Monkstown Parish< -8851327 | Holy Trinity Kingstown Parish 1900< -8856889 | Diocese of Dublin 1900< -11298801 | Province of Dublin< -15480473 | Killiney DED 1971< -12498372... |
| 2 | 2025-03-30 12:05 | SomeoneElse | For completeness, there is still an issue here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting that people work together there. | |
| 164227255 by Dafo43 @ 2025-03-28 21:10 | 1 | 2025-03-30 11:14 | SomeoneElse | I think that the merge of the ways to make https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323221895/history makde a couple of townlands invalid polygons; I split it again in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164282607 .To be clear it might not have been this changeset; this was just the most recent one t... |
| 2 | 2025-03-30 17:45 | Dafo43 ♦31 | Thanks, been making a lot of changes so I would expect to have made a few mistakes. | |
| 163261711 by OldManCelli @ 2025-03-05 21:13 | 1 | 2025-03-29 11:03 | SomeoneElse | Hello, What was "invalid" that led to the change here? The comment just says "Fixed an invalid way." which does not really explain anything.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-03-29 16:05 | OldManCelli ♦96 | It had a self intersection. So I converted it to a relation with two members. One for outer and one for inner. | |
| 163170435 by MPFG @ 2025-03-03 17:08 | 1 | 2025-03-29 10:49 | SomeoneElse | Hello MPFG,It'd be great if the changeset comment here was a bit more descriptive, such as "added buildings to a suspiciously empty area in the east of Glasgow"Best Regards,Andy |
| 164230732 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-28 23:31 | 1 | 2025-03-28 23:35 | SomeoneElse | The "one vs four" problem was caused indirectly by the mapping of the former units as "buildings" (possibly by me!). This isn't really correct; there's actually really only one building on each side, and the interior partitions can be moved and removed easily. |
| 164164848 by NTMountainRanger @ 2025-03-27 13:36 | 1 | 2025-03-27 13:40 | NeisBot ♦2,300 | Hi NTMountainRanger, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:- 2 highway(s)Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by ... |
| 2 | 2025-03-27 13:44 | NTMountainRanger ♦1 | These are intentional changes | |
| 3 | 2025-03-27 13:53 | woodpeck ♦2,430 | Hi there, in OSM we do not delete informal trails, instead we mark them approriately. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F for further information. DWG Ticket#2025032710000549 | |
| 4 | 2025-03-27 13:56 | NTMountainRanger ♦1 | Thanks for coming back to me. While these trails have been in existence for some time they have only recently been marked on the map. They cross what is essentially private land | |
| 5 | 2025-03-27 13:59 | NTMountainRanger ♦1 | Working for the National Trust we don't want to promote responsible access to the uplands. That involves not promoting unregulated recreational activity on sensitive habitats | |
| 6 | 2025-03-27 14:11 | NTMountainRanger ♦1 | Having read through the linked article I would also point out that there is no on the ground trail in these areas, there are poorly defined routes through these areas of sensitive habitat which if promoted will increase the damage to the protected area. Happy to engage in further conversation on thi... | |
| 7 | 2025-03-28 08:39 | NeisReview ♦936 | Thanks for your private message and confirming that your deletions were intentional.However, your changeset and map edits have been reverted. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164165510 | |
| 8 | 2025-03-28 12:02 | SomeoneElse | @NTMountainRanger the problem with "just deleting" things like this is that it will not have the effect that you want it to have. If someone sees a "missing path" from old imagery, they might just add it back.Your colleagues in England and Wales have worked extensively with OS... | |
| 9 | 2025-03-28 12:23 | NTMountainRanger ♦1 | Hi Andy, thanks for the advice. Being new to the platform I wasn't aware of the protocols or possible outworkings of actions taken to edit pathlines. It's good to know these issues have been discussed before. I'll certainly reach out to my English colleagues and see where I get. Many ... | |
| 164184808 by Local Update @ 2025-03-27 21:56 | 1 | 2025-03-28 11:10 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like this change might have introduced a gap into a couple of townlands - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4204334#map=19/54.816293/-6.130655 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4161726#map=19/54.816293/-6.130655 . Are you able to fill it in or would you like help ... |
| 164187255 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-27 23:35 | 1 | 2025-03-27 23:48 | SomeoneElse | Near Yarm, from survey 27/3/2025 |
| 164127603 by Grannymeg @ 2025-03-26 15:37 | 1 | 2025-03-27 11:08 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like this changeset introduced a gap in the "Anglesey National Landscape" relation (10676742). I fixed that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164158424 . If you do find yourself modifying ways that are part of a relation you can check them by following https://w... |
| 164076073 by Wamia Zaman @ 2025-03-25 12:57 | 1 | 2025-03-26 20:22 | SomeoneElse | Hello Wamia Zaman and welcome to OpenStreetMap!One thing that'd be really helpful would be if you would use descriptive changeset comments that explain to other mappers what you're changing."#hotosm-project-16289 #OSM_Guatemala #Quetzaltenango #Kaart" is just a bunch of gibbe... |
| 164098464 by OgWasHere @ 2025-03-25 21:45 | 1 | 2025-03-26 20:17 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - I've also removed the building tag from the outer in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164137615 (it's already on the relation) and moved the wikidata from the outer to the relation. |
| 163918670 by quincylvania @ 2025-03-21 18:07 | 1 | 2025-03-23 11:51 | SomeoneElse | Probably not an obelisk lol...As ever with these, the answer seems to be "actually a bit more complicated than that". Wikipedia describes it as a "navigation beacon": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldon_Hill , elsewhere https://trigpointing.uk/trig/8861 it's an "Ad... |
| 163476128 by daavoo @ 2025-03-11 09:34 | 1 | 2025-03-23 10:16 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163979213 where the changeset comment is: Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163963906 , and see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-mapping-features-with-computer-vision/127790 - reverting some 'AI de... |
| 2 | 2025-03-23 10:33 | SomeoneElse | Unfortunately I had planned but failed to exclude some of the iD ones: 163476128, 163476238, 163476416, 163476742, 163479939, 163502236, 163502710, 163625364, 163625682, 163680698, 163709426, 163709463, 163748688, 163778513, 163778767, 163778850, 163779017, 163445439, 163445483... | |
| 163919727 by quincylvania @ 2025-03-21 18:29 | 1 | 2025-03-22 11:12 | Kees 59 ♦16 | Are you sure about the historic=monument? monument is described as "A memorial object, which is especially large (one can go inside, walk on or through it) or very tall". And node 1840038725 definitely does not comply with that.I believe historic=memorial is better suited for this one.... |
| 2 | 2025-03-22 13:00 | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/817805457/history looks like it should have been sanity-checked out of this change too. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-22 13:53 | quincylvania ♦54 | Thank you both for the review. I've fixed those features per your comments. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-22 14:59 | Kees 59 ♦16 | Hi again. It might be a good idea to go over this changeset. I picked out 2 changes. One because it rang a bell. I taught I came by the word in the wiki and one because of a weird, at least to me, name.The first one is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2168561999 With the name Cenotaph. If it i... | |
| 163941262 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-22 10:53 | 1 | 2025-03-22 11:18 | SomeoneElse | Also ts1714b |
| 163660724 by wayfarer_boy @ 2025-03-15 17:25 | 1 | 2025-03-19 20:28 | SomeoneElse | Hello,A couple of relations here now have gaps in them, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3149263#map=17/52.192768/-2.229597 . Do you know where the Three Choirs Way tells people to go if they are going from Worcester to Hereford?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-03-21 15:32 | wayfarer_boy ♦1 | Thanks for that. I've reconnected the Three Choirs Way here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163911286 and the Severn Way here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163911791 | |
| 3 | 2025-03-21 16:21 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 163854413 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-20 10:14 | 1 | 2025-03-20 10:14 | SomeoneElse | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 163851763, 163851833, 163852061, 163852132. |
| 163851833 by wESzim @ 2025-03-20 09:07 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-20 10:14 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163854413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some French schoolkid vandalism |
| 163852061 by wESzim @ 2025-03-20 09:13 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-20 10:14 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163854413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some French schoolkid vandalism |
| 163852132 by wESzim @ 2025-03-20 09:15 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-20 10:14 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163854413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some French schoolkid vandalism |
| 163851763 by wESzim @ 2025-03-20 09:05 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-20 10:14 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163854413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some French schoolkid vandalism |
| 163729302 by benjamin gsk @ 2025-03-17 12:14 | 1 | 2025-03-19 14:12 | SomeoneElse | Hello - a quick question about the cycle route at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4026281#map=18/51.308127/-0.614454 - do you know how it gets from the south bank to the north? There's a gap currently.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-03-19 16:04 | benjamin gsk ♦2 | Hi Andy,The cycle route switches sides without much thought behind it, from east to west the cyclist has to turn up off of the towpath and walk along the narrow pavement of the bridge up the road. There is no marked crossing and then you're back on the cycle route. Even though its crossing a ... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-19 20:18 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - I've edited it and it now looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4026281#map=18/51.308127/-0.614454 - is that OK? | |
| 163768352 by Bow-Tie Guy @ 2025-03-18 10:47 | 1 | 2025-03-19 14:04 | SomeoneElse | Oops - I think that the merging of two bits of bridge into https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176962752 has broken a couple of relations - see for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5986877#map=19/51.905440/-8.962245 . I've no idea if this was deliberately merged or just "somet... |
| 2 | 2025-03-19 14:47 | Bow-Tie Guy ♦2 | I see what happened. Looks like Vespucci just didn't flag it. I've tried to clean that section up a bit to keep the bridge seperate. Can you tell me what you think? Sorry I forgot to add the review request to it. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-19 20:08 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - they have both reappeared:10713a10714> -5986877 | Sleveen East10725a10727> -5986752 | Lackaduff55670c55672< (55667 rows)---> (55669 rows) | |
| 163791238 by Yog Sot @ 2025-03-18 20:20 | 1 | 2025-03-18 21:35 | YomanNH ♦307 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments |
| 2 | 2025-03-18 22:54 | SomeoneElse | To be honest (and with reference to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163383605 ) I suspect a bit of discussion would have helped here.I'm confused by noexit=yes on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8984377004/history . Presumably this is an unofficial (and hazardous?) pedestrian cros... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-19 00:47 | Yog Sot ♦236 | oh wow, so now i'm getting reported everytime? xDThis is a crossing that's there since like 30 years i live there. Not going to elaborate on local laws, coz that's spotty and even dear YNH doesnt follow laws in his city mapping. Tho if someone needs to go crazy with tags there, sure... | |
| 4 | 2025-03-19 01:10 | SomeoneElse | Irrespective of local laws, wuld some sort of "hazard" tag make sense?I think that there was some sort of discussion of "iffy" crossings on https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/do-we-really-need-railway-tram-crossing-resp-tram-level-crossing/118987 , but I might be wrong. | |
| 5 | 2025-03-19 02:09 | Yog Sot ♦236 | law may disallow crossing a dual carriage way, nontheless if people cross it at that certain route i don't see a reason to not map it. As for tram crossings, they do hold a big value, because you know that you do cross one on your way, coz you know ahead of time that you gotta yeld for instanc... | |
| 6 | 2025-03-19 10:33 | YomanNH ♦307 | noexit=yes służy do zupełnie czego innego, niż jest użyte w tym przypadku. Używa się tego na końcu drogi/chodnika/ścieżki itp., która nie ma kontynuacji. Jest to opisane w dokumentacji, którą już wiadomo, że lubisz ignorować: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:noe... | |
| 162603777 by (Anonymous) @ 2025-02-17 09:48 | 1 | 2025-03-17 19:30 | SomeoneElse | Hello EditWatcher,You've deleted a bunch of tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/731989519 including "oneway=no". Does that mean that it _is_ oneway, or something else?Best Regards,Andy |
| 163541226 by b-unicycling @ 2025-03-12 18:42 | 1 | 2025-03-13 11:04 | SomeoneElse | For info - I removed a couple of extra bits from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6153872 so that it's now just one ring. |
| 2 | 2025-03-13 21:17 | b-unicycling ♦242 | Thanks! | |
| 3 | 2025-03-13 21:24 | SomeoneElse | I think the trick with iD is to always search for the relation number rather than guessing based on the name, because townlands/EDs/whatever can all have similar names... | |
| 4 | 2025-03-13 21:29 | b-unicycling ♦242 | I was also working on my laptop with a rather small screen, and at times, it won't show me all the parts of the relation of the townland. I'll just have to leave notes or fixmes in the future and come back and fix the outline in JOSM. | |
| 147107117 by plymothian @ 2024-02-05 19:43 | 1 | 2025-03-13 15:44 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm guessing that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1246468471/history might have been a Boots Opticians once, but is now a pet shop?Best Regards,Andy |
| 163540661 by eusty @ 2025-03-12 18:26 | 1 | 2025-03-13 10:40 | SomeoneElse | Oops - I think that the original A148 he was part of the "outer" of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and there's now a gap in it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9471593#map=14/52.78094/0.45851 . Are you OK to add that back or would you like me to? |
| 2 | 2025-03-13 11:48 | eusty ♦1 | You can do that if you don't mind 😊 | |
| 3 | 2025-03-13 11:55 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163566809 | |
| 163380776 by Wookey @ 2025-03-08 21:50 | 1 | 2025-03-12 02:00 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | Hello,There seems to be a bit of an odd spur on a few route relations at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1832946#map=19/51.626375/-1.013466 . Is that a mistake and do they all go to the south, or is there a bit through the field missing? Affected relations can be seen at https://map.ato... |
| 2 | 2025-03-12 04:43 | Wookey ♦21 | The spur to the field gate is not part of any of the routes/relations. The mapping was previously wrong, showing the routes (Ridgeway, Icknield Way etc) going along a track that way, with a parallel footway that was not part of any of these relations.In fact the track through the field no longe... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-13 11:27 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163565825 | |
| 163548864 by b-unicycling @ 2025-03-12 23:23 | 1 | 2025-03-13 11:03 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/371619998 removed from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5518440 deliberately?Previously that relation was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/20hZ , but now it's just two sides of a triangle.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-03-13 21:07 | b-unicycling ♦242 | Not purposefully, but I was working in iD which is never a good idea for townland relations. I'll have another look. | |
| 163548629 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-12 23:11 | 1 | 2025-03-12 23:27 | SomeoneElse | Also ts1708b |
| 163422314 by Constrado @ 2025-03-10 00:54 Active block | 1 | 2025-03-10 01:06 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It is clear (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/39972557 ) that you disagree with other mappers about road classifications here. Can you explain where you have discussed it with them and persuaded them that your point of view is correct?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-03-10 08:26 | Dawid2849 ♦711 | Wycofałem tę zmianę, gdyż nie zostala przedyskutowana ze społecznościąhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163430787 | |
| 3 | 2025-03-10 13:27 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | "uzasadnionej jako wandalizm w celu mapowania pod siebie" - to jest uzasadnienie tej edycji? | |
| 163137756 by Yog Sot @ 2025-03-02 20:52 | 1 | 2025-03-02 21:06 | theDM ♦90 | teraz pokaż mi, gdzie masz obniżony krawężnik przy Shellu względem samej jezdni |
| 2 | 2025-03-02 21:18 | Yog Sot ♦236 | przy szelu połączenie nastapiło, bo nie mozna zrobić od razu całego miasta. krawezniki były zmapowane bliżej skrzyzowania i tam skasowałeś informacje o nich, wypustkach oraz dokładnego typu nawierzchni. Po raz kolejny raz wprowadzasz zmiany bez uprzedniego zapytania się. Rozmawiali... | |
| 3 | 2025-03-02 21:39 | theDM ♦90 | widziałem jak były zmapowane i nie ma tam obniżenia przy samej jezdni. Przejedź się najpierw albo zobacz jak wygląda w terenie naprawdę zamiast trwać w swoich urojeniach. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-02 21:48 | Yog Sot ♦236 | przy szelu zarówno chodnik jak i rowerówka zachowują ciągłość, krawężnik obnizony jest dla aut przecinających te ciągi. Natomiast znów pisałem o9 czym innym, a ty o pewno czym innym. Nie rozumiem dlaczego wolisz dyskusję z wiadomościa raz na poł godz/pół dni... | |
| 5 | 2025-03-02 22:02 | theDM ♦90 | Ty serio przejdź się tam, zamiast brnąć w swojej fikcji. Krawężnik nie jest obniżony na wjeździe do Shella, a wyjazd masz tylko na Brzechwy. Nie masz pojęcia, jak to wygląda tam w terenie, to się za to nie bierzJuż inni pisali, że to raczej kwalifikuje się pod 1 linię. Tak trudno ci... | |
| 6 | 2025-03-04 13:55 | YomanNH ♦307 | @theDM: Skoro ta edycja wprowadza fikcję, to może warto ją wycofać? | |
| 7 | 2025-03-06 16:49 | Yog Sot ♦236 | Spokojnie, na forum w General talkwiki wiki-proposal bicycle trwa dyskusja, zachęcam do zapoznania się z przedstawionymi przykładami i uzasadnieniami. Gruby temet, sporo literek niestety | |
| 8 | 2025-03-06 17:14 | theDM ♦90 | Podaj linka.Swoją drogą, dzisiaj jechałem tamtędy, to od wysokości Myśliwskiej do Nowowiczlińskiej nie masz nawet odmiennego koloru kostki chodnika, więc ten rozdział tym bardziej jest błędny. | |
| 9 | 2025-03-06 19:33 | YomanNH ♦307 | > proposal> trwa dyskusjaCzyli nic konkretnego nie zostało ustalone. Trzymajmy się w takim razie obowiązującej dokumentacji, a nie propozycji, które może wejdą w życie, a może nie.I też poproszę o linka. | |
| 10 | 2025-03-06 20:25 | Yog Sot ♦236 | wejdzcie w te podkategorie proposal, warto się nauczyć forum. A co do wiki, jasno przedstawia dwie mozliwości. tyle samo osób to powiedizało ile udaje, że tego tam nie ma wypierając z egzystencji ;D. I w sumie postępujecie w wiki prawidłowy sposób iz wchodzicie w spó... | |
| 11 | 2025-03-06 21:02 | YomanNH ♦307 | Warto to nauczyć się mapować zgodnie z dokumentacją, jaka obowiązuje.A drugi sposób mapowania, czyli dwie osobne linie, jest jasno opisany jako ten, którego należy unikać. | |
| 12 | 2025-03-06 21:34 | theDM ♦90 | Dokładnie, może i dwie linie są, ale uchodzą za kontrowersyjne i jest preferowane używanie 1 linii. Tym bardziej, że w większość tego odcinka nie ma nawet odmiennego koloru kostki na styku chodnika i ddr. | |
| 13 | 2025-03-08 12:21 | SomeoneElse | Hello, Andy from the Data Working Group here.Firstly, I'd suggest that everyone takes this this discussion to the forum (a specific topic about this edit). I can see that there are already general discussions there such as https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/zniszczenie-mojej-pracy-nad-inf... | |
| 14 | 2025-03-08 12:22 | SomeoneElse | Cześć, Andy z Data Working Group.Po pierwsze, zasugerowałbym, aby wszyscy przenieśli tę dyskusję na forum (konkretny temat dotyczący tej edycji). Widzę, że są już tam ogólne dyskusje, takie jak https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/zniszczenie-mojej-pracy-nad-infrastruktura-rower... | |
| 15 | 2025-03-08 12:40 | theDM ♦90 | Hi Andy, in general these paths aren't separated physically with barriers or grass.It looks like this path:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Witosa_bike_2.jpg/400px-Witosa_bike_2.jpgI can tak some photos on Monday, but stretch from Górnicza to Nowowiczlińsk... | |
| 16 | 2025-03-08 12:44 | theDM ♦90 | Even in the same discussion on PL forum most of mappers indicated 1 line as correct.Example in very last replies.https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/zniszczenie-mojej-pracy-nad-infrastruktura-rowerowa/125418/177 | |
| 17 | 2025-03-08 13:21 | SomeoneElse | @Yog Sot, based on the comments above, can you explain why this was "invalid" and why you reverted it? | |
| 18 | 2025-03-09 23:38 | Yog Sot ♦236 | * tactile_pavement has not been remapped in his one-lined styleboth for curb nodes and footways* crossings dont have information about its markings or traffic island* surface information is vaque on crossings of all type* footway crossings with a cycleway has spotty info if its actually a cr... | |
| 19 | 2025-03-10 00:15 | SomeoneElse | @Yog%20Sot I'm only involved because the DWG received complaints about the way that you rode roughshod over other mappers and just reverted their work, despite it largely following community agreed guidelines.We have given you lots of opportunity to try and find a consensus, and at https://co... | |
| 20 | 2025-03-10 12:45 | Yog Sot ♦236 | Oh yeah, i have met a lot of people and community is great, wouldn't be around otherwise. And there are different people fully supporting two-lining and one-lining. In the thread you linked, there are advocats of different methods as well. There is a topic in Polish community section and ther... | |
| 63663017 by Russ @ 2018-10-19 00:27 | 1 | 2025-03-09 20:02 | SomeoneElse | A quick question - are things like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635829122 above the sea level or below it? I'm guessing the latter? |
| 2 | 2025-03-09 22:31 | Russ ♦56 | They are above the sea - like oil platforms. This is the substation in question:https://dudgeonoffshorewind.co.uk/img/gallery1/construction70.jpg | |
| 3 | 2025-03-09 22:41 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - I was worried that my rendering of "a building in the middle of the North Sea" was wrong! | |
| 4 | 2025-03-09 22:46 | Russ ♦56 | I think it makes sense that an offshore `building=*` should be assumed to be above the water unless it has `location=underwater`.Ideally I'd like to show these on OpenInfraMap but it would involve dealing with all buildings, and I'd prefer not to! | |
| 163383605 by Yog Sot @ 2025-03-09 00:11 | 1 | 2025-03-09 01:10 | SomeoneElse | DO NOT DO ANY MORE REVERTS.You will be blocked from the OSM API if you do.Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group. |
| 2 | 2025-03-18 21:42 | YomanNH ♦307 | Yog Sot, czyżbyś użył reverta mimo zakazu? :)https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163791238 | |
| 163106806 by C2L @ 2025-03-02 00:49 | 1 | 2025-03-02 13:37 | SomeoneElse | Hello - I think that the new bit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1363939186 needs adding to a couple of relations - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1695404#map=19/52.348209/-1.403282 shows the gap in one of them.Best Regards,Andy |
| 162551282 by ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy @ 2025-02-15 21:14 | 1 | 2025-02-16 01:58 | PierZen ♦262 | En observant les chemins et noeuds pour les routes du grand Montréal, on constate que depuis 5-10 ans vous avez effacé a peu près tout ce qui existait et recréé constamment de nouvelles nodes et chemins. Et encore ici, vous effacez des chemins et re-ajoutez. Vous ... |
| 2 | 2025-02-16 02:41 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | Bonjour! Je suis associé de recherche à Politechnique Montréal et à la Chaire Mobilité. Mes collègues et moi ajoutons de nombreux lieux d'activité (POIs) manquants ou à mettre à jour, nous ajoutons également les trottoirs pis... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-16 23:27 | PierZen ♦262 | Une analyse pour seulement les autoroutes et bretelles d'autoroute dans le grand Montréal indique que ce compte a effacé quelque 9600 chemins (autoroutes et bretelles d'autoroute) depuis le début 2020. Vous dites améliorer la qualité, mais il devient tr... | |
| 4 | 2025-02-17 21:43 | PierZen ♦262 | Pour la problématique des chemins effacés / retracés, vous observerez pour notamment les autoroutes en France, Allemagne, Angleterre et USA, que les objets sont conservés souvent depuis 15 ans.Vous avez encore enregistré plusieurs sessions d'édit... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-17 22:00 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | Je vous ai écrit par message privé. J'attends votre réponse. Merci!Je n'efface jamais explicitement des liens routiers, donc c'est un artefact de l'éditeur ID. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi les mêmes artefacts n'ont pas lieu ailleurs. J... | |
| 6 | 2025-02-18 17:05 | PierZen ♦262 | Je suggère d'organiser une discussions sur community.openstreetmap.org où il serait possible pour la communauté OSM et la Chaire Mobilité de faire le point sur la cartographie du réseau routier au Québec, de présenter les problèmes et solu... | |
| 7 | 2025-02-18 17:32 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | C'est déjà fait. Et la discussion a aussi eu lieu avec des experts des USA et d'Allemagne. Le consensus est de suivre le wiki et les propositions pour placement=transition et lanes:width:start et lanes:width:end. Dans mes derniers changements, je suis à la lettre ces... | |
| 8 | 2025-02-28 15:38 | SomeoneElse | @ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy can you link to where the public discussion happened on c.osm.org? | |
| 9 | 2025-02-28 15:48 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | Nowadays, I just update the motorway junction transitions to follow the official and proposal wiki:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:placement=transitionhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:PlacementI'm searching for the original discussion. Will put it there as soon a... | |
| 10 | 2025-02-28 15:54 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | It was a slack thread in #questionable-edits back in 2022. But it is obsolete since we now follow the official wiki on placement=transition. | |
| 11 | 2025-02-28 17:27 | SomeoneElse | Ah, thanks.Slack, obviously, is outside the control of OSMF for archiving for future reference etc., whereas the wiki (hopefully!) should be available for reference until the heat death of the universe... | |
| 12 | 2025-02-28 17:39 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | Nice! :-) | |
| 13 | 2025-03-01 21:15 | PierZen ♦262 | What is the exact status of Tag:placement=transition since it has not been adopted systematically in other countries ? You are the main user adopting this tag and you cannot refer to discussions with the local community. There is not a general adoption of this tag around the world. Statistics show t... | |
| 14 | 2025-03-01 21:25 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | Status of placement=transition is "in use" not a proposal. I added the proposal in this discussion because it is more detailed and explains the history of why it was added. Placements are the only way we can know which part of the street segments are not aligned with the real lanes, and th... | |
| 15 | 2025-03-01 21:28 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | If you look here: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/placement=transition#mapyou will see that the usage of placement=transition is not specific to Quebec, it is used all over the world. | |
| 16 | 2025-03-02 13:16 | SomeoneElse | Given that this sort of thing is of interest to lots of other people, I'd suggest a forum discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ would be a really good idea. In French would be fine - other people can just hit the "translate" button. | |
| 17 | 2025-03-02 13:55 | ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦353 | OK, I agree. However, please help me starting the discussion by stating what issues are to be asked to the community. The use of JOSM instead of the iD editor seems hard to enforce because iD is the official editor, for better and for worse, and it is way easier to use for this kind of work (we can ... | |
| 18 | 2025-03-08 13:14 | PierZen ♦262 | pour la suite de la discussion voir https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/motorways-and-trunk-roads-completed-and-validated-for-the-whole-montreal-region/126884/4 | |
| 163047065 by superrache @ 2025-02-28 11:01 | 1 | 2025-03-01 10:34 | SomeoneElse | Oops, looks like this got added in the middle of the Atlantic and someone had to delete it. Maybe "osmtree" should check that it has sensible lat and long before adding? |
| 163072708 by jajanja3 @ 2025-02-28 23:49 | 1 | 2025-02-28 23:50 | SomeoneElse | Hello again jajanja3 ,Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161257413 , please do use changeset comments that actually explain what you have changed. "Navigation Detail" on its own does not really help anyone. |
| 162522036 by VLD290 @ 2025-02-14 23:35 | 1 | 2025-02-16 13:58 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've written "#maproulette" in the comment - does that mean that this change was done as a result of a maproulette challenge? If so, where is that? Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 17:35 | VLD290 ♦5 | Hey Andy,Here’s the link: https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/52996 Have a great day, Jonathon | |
| 3 | 2025-02-28 23:17 | SomeoneElse | Thanks. Would it be possible to ensure that changesets have some reference to the actual maproulette task? Maproulette tasks tend to be of variable quality, and it's really useful to know which changesets resulted from which one. | |
| 163067597 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-28 20:05 | 1 | 2025-02-28 20:51 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 21:51 | SomeoneElse | I've added two nodes, both of which have pictures:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626336200 is an "Unsuitable for Motors" sign pointing south. There's a picture of the sign.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626377501 is a place where there is _no_ sign on the tra... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-28 21:57 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | 2025-02-28 22:02 | SomeoneElse | Can you try replying to https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-bot-like-comments-on-changesets/126587/7 in the forum? | |
| 5 | 2025-02-28 22:09 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 162951932 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-25 22:43 | 1 | 2025-02-27 10:22 | SomeoneElse | Currently the relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4283214 is just a line with one member https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317689837 ? I'm guessing that "Part of Ausestown" is not actually a thing but "Causestown" is? |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 18:08 | b-unicycling ♦242 | line deleted from relation, relation deleted | |
| 3 | 2025-02-28 21:39 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 163028674 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-27 21:00 | 1 | 2025-02-28 14:47 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 17:39 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | > Why you can create a pub?what was your reason for posting this comment? | |
| 3 | 2025-02-28 20:30 | SomeoneElse | I went in for a beer, and inside it was more like a pub than a bar. | |
| 162892444 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-24 13:20 | 1 | 2025-02-24 13:21 | SomeoneElse | There may also be an "unsuitable..." sign at the top end covering https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46588460 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46588459 , but when I was last there the only signage was at the southeast. |
| 2 | 2025-02-24 19:07 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-24 20:58 | SomeoneElse | > There is also an "unsuitable..." sign at the top end Is there? Can you link to a picture of it? | |
| 4 | 2025-02-26 20:45 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 5 | 2025-02-26 21:46 | SomeoneElse | What, exactly, does the sign say? | |
| 6 | 2025-02-26 22:25 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 7 | 2025-02-27 00:07 | SomeoneElse | I asked my friend "Eliza" for help and she suggested asking: Is it because you have not got any links there is an unsuitable signwhich may found at the top end covering that you came to me? | |
| 8 | 2025-02-28 14:45 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 9 | 2025-02-28 17:47 | SomeoneElse | pssst: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4645568#map=17/54.232161/-1.201329&layers=N | |
| 10 | 2025-02-28 20:08 | SomeoneElse | There's no sign pointing east down Hambleton Road and Oldstead Bank. There is one pointing south down High Town Bank Road. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163067597 . | |
| 163010013 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-27 12:20 | 1 | 2025-02-27 13:18 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2025-02-27 13:34 | SomeoneElse | Hello, do you mind if I ask a personal question - are you a human? | |
| 3 | 2025-02-28 06:29 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 4 | 2025-02-28 13:36 | SomeoneElse | Your question "why" was, I believe answered quite fully by the history of the object and the changeset tags here. That's why I asked the question above.May I ask what brought this edit and the others at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NinaNesterovaOSM/changeset_comments to you... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-28 14:42 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 6 | 2025-02-28 15:03 | SomeoneElse | You're not really explaining yourself very well. I've asked at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-bot-like-comments-on-changesets/126587 - perhaps you could post a comment there? | |
| 7 | 2025-02-28 16:05 | NinaNesterovaOSM Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 8 | 2025-02-28 17:13 | SomeoneElse | Thank you. I still don't understand what you're asking here?I was a shop. It closed. Then it opened again. Then it closed again. Then it opened again. There were at least 3 name changes along the way. | |
| 163032715 by jajanja3 @ 2025-02-28 00:19 | 1 | 2025-02-28 14:44 | SomeoneElse | Hello jajanja3, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161257413 , please do use changeset comments that actually explain what you have changed. "Navigation Detail" on its own does not really help anyone.Best Regards,Andy |
| 162737594 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:56 | 1 | 2025-02-20 13:59 | MorahT ♦23 | This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_ChurnChanges to the service road also crosses highway. |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 | |
| 163052641 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-28 13:27 | 1 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 162736067, 162736386, 162736504, 162736625, 162736843, 162737594, 162737644, 162795263, 162795676, 162795853, 162818469, 162819929. |
| 162736067 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:13 | 1 | 2025-02-20 13:57 | MorahT ♦23 | This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 | |
| 3 | 2025-04-05 06:51 | boil frayed candle ♦1 | The thought process here was probably a misunderstanding of OSM, as they put the hydrological source of the Thames. What they don't understand, is OSM is about what agencies actually call it, not about obscure scientific facts. So, they should have known more about OSM before doing this, becaus... | |
| 162736504 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:24 | 1 | 2025-02-20 13:58 | MorahT ♦23 | This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 | |
| 162818469 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-22 14:28 | 1 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 |
| 162736625 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:28 | 1 | 2025-02-20 13:59 | MorahT ♦23 | This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 | |
| 162795676 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-21 20:35 | 1 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 |
| 162736386 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:21 | 1 | 2025-02-20 14:06 | MorahT ♦23 | If there is no valid reason for changing the name from "River Thames" to "Thames Winterbourne", this changeset needs to be reverted. |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 | |
| 162795853 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-21 20:42 | 1 | 2025-02-21 21:36 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!You've changed a number of river names here, and people are wondering what the reason for that change was.The river in OSM previously reflected the view in other older maps, such as OS OpenData StreetView from 2016 https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map... |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 | |
| 162819929 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-22 15:07 | 1 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 |
| 162736843 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:34 | 1 | 2025-02-20 13:59 | MorahT ♦23 | This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 | |
| 162737644 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:58 | 1 | 2025-02-20 13:59 | MorahT ♦23 | This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn |
| 2 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 | |
| 162795263 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-21 20:18 | 1 | 2025-02-28 13:27 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316 |
| 162979285 by AdrianLangtry @ 2025-02-26 16:31 | 1 | 2025-02-27 10:15 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | It looks like one of these changes broke at least one relation - "12458163 | Kilconny ED". I've fixed it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163005426 - does everything still look OK? |
| 2 | 2025-02-27 10:27 | AdrianLangtry ♦15 | Sorry about that, I think it appeared to be a duplicate line where the river area meets the lake and I removed the wrong line there, otherwise I'm not sure what could have happened. Looks good now | |
| 3 | 2025-02-27 10:30 | SomeoneElse | Thanks | |
| 162578565 by PonasJonas @ 2025-02-16 16:48 | 1 | 2025-02-16 18:45 | Tomas Straupis ♦1,956 | Laba diena. Šitas dviračių takas per daug integruotas į patį kelią, kad būtų žymimas kaip atskiras vektorius. Todėl jis atskiru vektoriumi ir nebuvo pažymėtas. Ir nereikia jo atskiru vektoriumi žymėti. |
| 2 | 2025-02-22 12:00 | SomeoneElse | @kkuzmickas Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!How and whether to map "cycling on the sidewalk" infrastructure is a hotly-debated topic within OpenStreetMap. There are cycling advocates that argue that everywhere it is allowed it should be mapped separately, and there are those (like To... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-22 12:00 | SomeoneElse | @kkuzmickas Sveiki ir sveiki atvykę į OpenStreetMap!Kaip ir ar pažymėti „važinėjimo dviračiu šaligatviu“ infrastruktūrą, yra karštai diskutuojama OpenStreetMap tema. Yra dviračių šalininkų, kurie teigia, kad visur, kur tai leidžiama, reikėtų pažymė... | |
| 4 | 2025-02-22 13:06 | Tomas Straupis ♦1,956 | My simple comment is "refer to local community". This has been discussed quite a lot. The statement I made is from Lithuanian mapping community, not mine alone. I have no idea how Andy is being able to "calculate the popularity", especially when popular is not the same as profess... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-22 13:11 | SomeoneElse | @Tomas perhaps you could link to the public forum where this discussion has been taking place? | |
| 6 | 2025-02-22 13:17 | Tomas Straupis ♦1,956 | Discussions have been done in mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/admindb/talk-lt years ago (in Lithuanian of course). Also in our meetings in a pub (not documented, of course), we sometimes get more than 10 participants even from outside of Vilnius, so it is very representative. It also ha... | |
| 7 | 2025-02-22 15:15 | SomeoneElse | > Discussions have been done in mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/admindb/talk-lt years agoThanks - do you have a link to the thread? | |
| 8 | 2025-02-22 15:35 | Tomas Straupis ♦1,956 | No, too much info there. But kkuzmickas reads Lithuanian, so he can go through, there might be some other important or interesting information for him. There were a number of cycling related discussion as we were discussing cycling schema to use, maps products to make etc. If he still has questions ... | |
| 9 | 2025-02-22 15:42 | somehundred ♦101 | I just want to point out that the provided mapillary footage is outdated. Here's a new one from July 2024: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.6729267&lng=25.2726497&z=19.9&pKey=880819717313713&focus=photo&x=0.08102023366484773&y=0.6206059317455411&zoom=0.807537012... | |
| 10 | 2025-02-22 15:56 | SomeoneElse | Indeed - and I have to agree that even to someone (like me!) who tends to map roadside infrastructure as "part of the road", https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.673459200000025&lng=25.272460000000024&z=19.9&pKey=522626237131593&focus=photo&x=0.9962062785249548&y=0... | |
| 11 | 2025-02-24 22:27 | SomeoneElse | Following the complaint to the DWG Ticket#2025022210000194 and the discussion above, I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162910810 .To reiterate, I suspect that, based on the sources above _most_ OSM mappers (even ones like me who often map such infrastructure as par... | |
| 12 | 2025-02-25 06:22 | Tomas Straupis ♦1,956 | Ok, I see. So once again you, Andy, do not consult local community, but rather make your own decisions and in this case leave after yourself broken data - now cycleway is double-tagged. No, I will not discuss it here anymore. We will keep discussion in our closed forums away from incompetence of DWG... | |
| 13 | 2025-02-25 18:10 | PonasJonas ♦1 | Well, I believe 'thank you's are in order for the exceptionally, ahem, 'warm' welcome.I marked the aforementioned bicycle path as separate structure, rather than part of the road, solely from my personal expertise, since I live in close proximity to the object of discussion.\... | |
| 162448938 by unyny @ 2025-02-13 00:09 | 1 | 2025-02-13 06:31 | JakubS ♦12 | Czy mógłbyś wyjaśnić dlaczego cały czas zmieniasz Krasówkę z waterway=stream na waterway=river skoro na tym odcinku jest tak wąskim ciekiem, że nie kwalifikuje się na river, patrz:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162232530#map=14/51.21258/19.28641 |
| 2 | 2025-02-14 12:49 | unyny ♦6 | Zasadniczo rzeka od strumienia różni się powierzchnią zlewni, a nie szerokością. Choć niektóre definicje również ten parametr uwzględniają, niemniej tyczy się on maksymalnej szerokości jaki dany ciek osiąga, a nie tejże w jakimś konkretnym miejscu. Inaczej mó... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-14 13:56 | JakubS ♦12 | Nie jest to tylko "moje" ale społeczności OSM, na Wiki jest to wyraźnie opisane, podobnie jak w wielu dyskusjach na forum. Każda rzeka u swoich źródeł jest wąskim ciekiem, który bez problemów można przekroczyć i powinna być tagowana jako waterway=stream na po... | |
| 4 | 2025-02-15 07:04 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | ". Inaczej mówiąc: rzeka jest rzeką, a strumień strumieniem na całej swojej długości, od źródeł do ująca, niezależnie od miejsca swojego biegu. Definicja osm jest tutaj niejasna, bo w żaden sposób nie precyzuje, czy odnosi się ona do cieku na całej jego długo... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-15 07:06 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | "rzeka jest rzeką, a strumień strumieniem na całej swojej długości, od źródeł do ująca, niezależnie od miejsca swojego biegu"możew OSM początkowe odcinki zaznaczane są waterway=stream niezależnie zgodnie z sytuacją w danym miejscu niezależnie od tego co jest d... | |
| 6 | 2025-02-15 07:06 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Chyba że źródło jest na tyle duże że od razu mamy coś większego od strumienia. | |
| 7 | 2025-02-15 17:12 | unyny ♦6 | Właśnie tak to funkcjonuje w realnym świecie - rzeka zaczyna się od źródła, na początku jest strumieniem, potem dobiera zamienia się w porządną rzekę (chyba że w międzyczasie wpadnie do jakiegoś innego cieku/zbiornika). To co ty opisujesz jest próbą trzymania się na si... | |
| 8 | 2025-02-15 17:37 | unyny ♦6 | czemu sądzisz że definicja OSM jest niejasna?zdecydowanie odnosi się do danego miejsca, która dokumentacja tego nie precyzuje jasno?Bo sprawia wrażenie jakby kompletnie różniła się od tych które funkcjonują w normalnym świecie (które definiują ciek na ca... | |
| 9 | 2025-02-15 18:00 | unyny ♦6 | Zwracam też uwagę na pogorszenie jakości mapy z tak pozaznaczanymi ciekami. Przy większych powiększeniach rzeki mają "poucinane" górne odcinki (w przypadku tych mniejszych może to być znaczna część ich biegu), co znacznie utrudnia ich znalezienie i najzwyczajniej zakłamu... | |
| 10 | 2025-02-15 18:09 | JakubS ♦12 | @unyny Powtórzę jeszcze raz, że sposób tagowania za którym argumentuję, nie jest moim wymysłem, a standardem przyjętym przez społeczność OSM, powszechnie stosowanym i raczej mało kontrowersyjnym jeśli prześledzić choćby dyskusje na forum. Jeżeli się z nim nie zgad... | |
| 11 | 2025-02-15 18:14 | JakubS ♦12 | A jeszcze odnośnie twojego ostatniego komentarza, to opisujesz tagowanie pod rendering, którego unikamy w OSM (mapując od tylu lat powinieneś już to wiedzieć). Nie wiadomo czemu ma służyć takie podejście, chyba tylko komfortu jakichś nieogarów którzy nie są w stanie z... | |
| 12 | 2025-02-15 18:18 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | "chyba tylko komfortu jakichś nieogarów którzy nie są w stanie zrozumieć, że rzeka w górnym biegu może być mała."to że nie wiesz jak w OSM zaznaczamy jakiś rodzaj obiektu to nie powód obrażać innychjak ktoś chce całą długość cieku wodneg... | |
| 13 | 2025-02-15 18:19 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | w każdym bądź razie wiesz już jak to zaznaczać, i wiesz że twoje tagowanie było błędne | |
| 14 | 2025-02-15 18:27 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | dla konkretów: w https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13629726 masz całą trasę rzeki (elementy main_stream)jak ktoś chce to może całą taką, nawet tam gdzie jest strumieniem, prezentować z wyróżnieniem | |
| 15 | 2025-02-21 12:42 | SomeoneElse | When I read these comments in translation I see that unyny has written "a river is a river, and a stream is a stream along its entire length". This is not how most people in OSM map rivers and streams. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rzeka-czy-strumien/125897/1 seems to be a discu... | |
| 16 | 2025-02-21 12:43 | SomeoneElse | Kiedy czytam te komentarze w tłumaczeniu, widzę, że unyny napisało „rzeka jest rzeką, a strumień jest strumieniem na całej swojej długości”. Większość osób w OSM nie mapuje rzek i strumieni w ten sposób. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rzeka-czy-strumien/1... | |
| 162553358 by CD Mapper @ 2025-02-15 22:35 | 1 | 2025-02-17 12:49 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like the update here has created a gap in a couple of boundary relations. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12409614#map=19/54.856662/-6.763608 has a gap under the bridge and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12403345#map=19/54.856662/-6.763608 also.The new culvert need... |
| 2 | 2025-02-17 12:51 | SomeoneElse | Also these two relations:< -4868091 | Fallagloon< -4868069 | Bracaghreilly | |
| 162531305 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-15 10:36 | 1 | 2025-02-17 12:50 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 162567677 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-16 11:57 | 1 | 2025-02-17 12:20 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 131315314 by Antonin Del Fabbro @ 2023-01-15 21:38 | 1 | 2025-02-16 18:46 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Was this mechanical edit discussed anywhere?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-02-16 19:07 | Antonin Del Fabbro ♦310 | Hi Andy,It was not a mechanical edit. ;)Thanks! | |
| 3 | 2025-02-16 21:13 | SomeoneElse | What was it that guided you to change these objects? | |
| 4 | 2025-02-16 21:20 | Antonin Del Fabbro ♦310 | …1. The Wiki after the new attribute was voted2. It was undiscussed3. All the modified objects where verified before edit. Aerial imagery, name and others attributes. It's no different from an usual edit I can chairmap.I know the rules about mechanical or blind edits, I read ... | |
| 5 | 2025-02-16 21:26 | SomeoneElse | Did you let any data consumers know that you were going to make the change?If not, how could they possibly know of it? | |
| 160962084 by VLD296 @ 2025-01-03 18:45 | 1 | 2025-02-16 12:12 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Given that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1348314221 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439915296 are tagged identically and have identical relationship memberships, what value does this change add?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-02-16 12:14 | SomeoneElse | One more question - you've written "#maproulette" in the comment - does that mean that this change was done as a result of a maproulette challenge? If so, where is that? | |
| 3 | 2025-02-16 13:47 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | given "I am the user VLD296, previously working on the mapping team at Meta. I am no longer active at the project. For any questions, please contact via email at osm@fb.com." at their user profile they are unlikely to answer | |
| 4 | 2025-02-16 13:53 | SomeoneElse | Their last edit was only 9 days ago!Hopefully somewhat at Facebook is monitoring the email with which https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VLD296 was signed up. My experience with osm@fb.com is that sometimes a bit of cage rattling via backchannels to get a response. | |
| 5 | 2025-02-16 14:01 | SomeoneElse | I've asked the second question of an active Facebook mapper with similar MO at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162522036 . There the "divide at intersection" makes more sense than here. | |
| 6 | 2025-02-24 17:31 | VLD170 ♦9 | Hello Andy, It is correct that VLD 296 is no longer working on our team. Apologies for the delayed response. I believe this edit was made because the road has a significant direction change at the point that it was split. Here is the challenge link https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/52996. ... | |
| 7 | 2025-02-25 14:02 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | "the road has a significant direction change at the point that it was split" why road should be changed in such cases anywhere at all? | |
| 8 | 2025-02-28 22:00 | VLD170 ♦9 | Hi Mateusz, A few reasons for splitting the road at a direction change are navigation and a better representation of the roads by improving the geometry. Additionally, It is very common for road names to change when the road has a large shift in cardinal direction.Matt | |
| 9 | 2025-03-01 23:30 | łapa ciemności ♦6 | Why it would improve navigation? How it improves geometry? (and yes, if name changes it should be split but because name changes not due to a sharp turn) | |
| 10 | 2025-03-03 21:05 | VLD170 ♦9 | Upon further review of this changeset, I have determined that the edit to split the way was not necessary, as there are no indications that the road would change names at this location. I will proceed to address the issue by recombining the way accordingly. Thank you for bringing this to my attentio... | |
| 162481645 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-13 21:23 | 1 | 2025-02-15 00:14 | SomeoneElse | Hello,https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5328674 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5328037 now have gaps in them - I'm guessing that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1359703304 should be part of both?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-02-15 10:37 | b-unicycling ♦242 | I added the missing part to three relations (Aglish, Portnascully and Corluddy). | |
| 3 | 2025-02-15 11:35 | SomeoneElse | Also https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5328674 Clasharoe needs doing too?The JOSM validator picks this up:1) Download object https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13597033042) Zoom out a bit3) Download data (some relations will appear)4) Click on all relations shown and "download wit... | |
| 4 | 2025-02-16 11:58 | b-unicycling ♦242 | Fixed. I usually use iD for that, it's quicker, because it takes so long for JOSM to load. Thanks for pointing it out. | |
| 5 | 2025-02-16 13:49 | SomeoneElse | Thanks | |
| 162562803 by n1dom @ 2025-02-16 09:18 | 1 | 2025-02-16 12:30 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What actually was the problem before and what was actually fixed here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-02-16 12:56 | n1dom ♦1 | Hi,The footpath way runs under the bridge but had a node connecting to the bridge way.Dom | |
| 3 | 2025-02-16 13:14 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - does maproulette allow you to say things like that in the changeset comment? | |
| 162023935 by jambamkin @ 2025-02-01 19:43 | 1 | 2025-02-16 12:01 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm guessing that you got to this area via the Asda car park https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1206017691/history but what were all the other changes here?They don't look like "rare parking=* values".Best Regards,Andy |
| 160033632 by Simon Hobeck @ 2024-12-07 16:58 | 1 | 2025-02-11 19:27 | SomeoneElse | Hello,On https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/8418714 you've changed "place=historic_township" to "place=town". Do you really believe that there is a town in Ireland called "Kingstown Township 1828-1855" :)To be fair, the task instruct... |
| 2 | 2025-02-11 19:27 | SomeoneElse | One more thing - I'm guessing tthat all of these changes will need reverting - do you need help with that? | |
| 3 | 2025-02-11 19:30 | alan_gr ♦42 | Hi,I was wondering if the change from historic_township to town was discussed with Irish mappers or anywhere else? In isolation "place=town" suggests this is actually a town currently. Only the boundary=historic tag and the end dates give clues that this is not a real "place=town&qu... | |
| 4 | 2025-02-11 19:30 | alan_gr ♦42 | Sorry, I must have been typing at the same time as SomeoneElse! Didn't intend to pile on there, but don't think I can delete it now. | |
| 5 | 2025-02-15 13:25 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162536114 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some poor-quality Maproulette changes. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160033632 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maproulette-critique/116922/90 | |
| 6 | 2025-02-15 18:43 | Simon Hobeck ♦12 | @someoneElseI'm sorry for the mess I made. It wasn't intentional I must have got confused with the task and the attributes.TBH I found Maproulette more trouble than its worth so have stopped using it - much safer sticking with StreetComplete and Direct edits.I did get muddled by the... | |
| 7 | 2025-02-15 21:42 | SomeoneElse | No worries - sorted now.Unfortunately you got blindsided by a couple of things:One is the "unusual" storage of historic data in OSM in Ireland (and particularly around Dublin). Like the UK, Ireland doesn't have freely accessible address data, and arguably OSI and OSI are even mor... | |
| 162244458 by aSalmon @ 2025-02-07 12:54 | 1 | 2025-02-08 11:53 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I think that there might be a bit of a problem with some of the relations here - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137279112 overlaps with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375867813 now, which means that relations such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11047400 have overlaps and hav... |
| 2 | 2025-02-12 14:45 | aSalmon ♦1 | Thanks Andy. I don't really have the technical knowledge to understand this problem, so I just reverted the whole changeset with osm-revert. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-15 12:35 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - everything has now reappeared, I think. | |
| 162251302 by rskedgell @ 2025-02-07 16:09 | 1 | 2025-02-15 12:24 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 149600582 by BCNorwich @ 2024-04-05 07:28 | 1 | 2025-02-15 01:29 | SomeoneElse | I'm not sure what happened here but "remove self intersection of way" seems to have changed the tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128205661/history from grass / common to recreation_ground(!). |
| 162384688 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-11 10:27 | 1 | 2025-02-15 00:44 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - this has reappeared now |
| 162433113 by aSalmon @ 2025-02-12 14:42 | 1 | 2025-02-15 00:34 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - they've reappeared now! |
| 134431427 by DougGrinbergs @ 2023-04-02 22:27 | 1 | 2025-02-13 11:06 | SomeoneElse | Also on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10780586226 I suspect that "bitch" might be an iOS typo for "bench"? |
| 156970489 by DougGrinbergs @ 2024-09-22 21:48 | 1 | 2025-02-13 11:04 | SomeoneElse | I'm guessing that "bitch" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12193471749 might actually be an iOS autocorrect typo for "bench"? |
| 162134426 by F777 @ 2025-02-04 17:03 | 1 | 2025-02-12 23:18 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Please help other mappers to understand what you are changing by using changeaet comments that describe what it is you're changing.Best Regards,Andy |
| 160891291 by deleted user123 @ 2025-01-02 02:29 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-02 02:53 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160891524 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some obvious vandalism by user blocked at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17052 |
| 2 | 2025-02-07 18:21 | Hulu12 ♦4 | *-SomeoneElse_Revert so what you're saying is reverting obvious vandalism is obvious vandalism? This seems wrong sure. | |
| 3 | 2025-02-11 19:58 | SomeoneElse | Have a look at e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/13465548 to see the actual tag changes here. | |
| 162371644 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-10 23:49 | 1 | 2025-02-11 18:02 | SomeoneElse | Not sure if it was this changeset that did it, but a gap has opened up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8815518#map=16/53.14825/-7.18811 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8797261#map=16/53.14825/-7.18811 here. |
| 2 | 2025-02-12 09:39 | b-unicycling ♦242 | fixed, thanks | |
| 98293459 by votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale @ 2021-01-28 11:40 | 1 | 2025-02-10 17:54 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Are you sure that this shop is correctly located?It seems to be in the middle of the footpath.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-02-11 07:41 | votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale ♦234 | Good morning,Thank you for your alert. We've corrected the problem.Best RegardsL'Equipe DB | |
| 162328030 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-09 20:34 | 1 | 2025-02-10 14:02 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I suspect that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1358422651 needs adding the the townlands that its neighbour up the road is part of - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4632073#map=16/52.96480/-7.36730 now has a gap in it.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-02-11 10:29 | b-unicycling ♦242 | Thanks for pointing that out, should be fixed now. | |
| 158551252 by YorkiePudd @ 2024-10-30 17:11 | 1 | 2024-10-31 23:31 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | revertedhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158601444 |
| 2 | 2024-10-31 23:34 | YorkiePudd ♦2 | Why did you revert it, it's how the two roads meet and connect | |
| 3 | 2025-02-07 10:50 | SomeoneElse | @Spaghetti Monster:Just for info, Hall Ings was a pedestrian route round a building site the last time I was there (a few months ago), I would assume that any imagery bears no relation to current layout. It really needs input from people on the ground. | |
| 4 | 2025-02-07 13:03 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Other discussions:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158189468https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150275508I don't remember exactly why I reverted this. | |
| 5 | 2025-02-07 14:00 | SomeoneElse | Apparently a "phased reopening" of the bus station is underway (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5w2qqk526o - started early Jan, to complete in April).I'm guessing based on that that a certain amount of development work is still incomplete - hopefully someone passing throug... | |
| 150275508 by The_JF @ 2024-04-20 18:15 | 1 | 2024-10-31 23:38 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Hi Do you have a source for the razed Jacob's Well roundabout on Princes Way south of city park?Mapillary or Kartaview imagery would be ideal.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapillaryhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/KartaView |
| 2 | 2025-02-07 13:29 | SomeoneElse | When I was at the Jacob's Well pub 6 months ago, the whole area between the Interchange station and there was a building site.I'm guessing the bus station has reopened now, but it hadn't ~4 months ago.It'll need someone on site to do it properly, I think. | |
| 158601444 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2024-10-31 23:31 | 1 | 2025-02-07 10:52 | SomeoneElse | What was the "incorrect mapping" that you reverted here?Without knowing that it's impossible to know what the problem was before. |
| 162214845 by fredgolightly @ 2025-02-06 16:22 | 1 | 2025-02-06 16:32 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 162208606 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-02-06 13:21 | 1 | 2025-02-06 15:03 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | Thanks. I'll try to walk the Strood/Rochester - Rainham bit soon and check the Saxon Shore way signage. I haven't been there for 10+ years, but I have a feeling that it may be a little bit like the Capital Ring and only signed on one side of the road in places. |
| 2 | 2025-02-06 15:10 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 79383177 by Xcm81 @ 2020-01-09 15:30 | 1 | 2021-10-02 09:54 | SomeoneElse | Hello,This changeset added a "spur" to the Saxon Shore Way - before it looked like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bFT and after it looked like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bFU . Was that deliberate? Sometimes paths like this have spurs that join to other roads, but sometimes they get add... |
| 2 | 2025-02-05 15:51 | Xcm81 ♦1 | Hi Andy, somehow I have only seen this message now. A bit late, I am afraid. Apologies.Is there still anything I need to look into?Regards,Xcm | |
| 3 | 2025-02-05 20:45 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - no, that spur's long gone now, I think. | |
| 161801668 by alain2003 @ 2025-01-27 02:22 | 1 | 2025-02-05 13:59 | SomeoneElse | Hello,There's an issue with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5174294 - the JOSM validator and OSM Inspector https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-6.59579&lat=31.53086&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_sh... |
| 2 | 2025-02-06 13:03 | alain2003 ♦22 | Hi SomeoneElseThanks for reporting this,Indeed the roles are not right.I looked into it and fixed the errors.Best regeards | |
| 161969878 by thetornado76 @ 2025-01-31 09:37 | 1 | 2025-02-02 13:38 | SomeoneElse | Rather than saying "healthcare fixed" it would be much better to explain what you've changed things from, what you've changed they to and why you've changed it.healthcare=osteopath is a tag that people actually consume: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/healthcare=o... |
| 2 | 2025-02-02 13:41 | SomeoneElse | The purpose of the OSM wiki is to document how people map, not to tell them how to map.Did you discuss this edit beforehand as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ?If not, then your actions are actively making OSM worse for editors and data consumers, not bett... | |
| 3 | 2025-02-02 16:57 | thetornado76 ♦162 | Unfortunately the comment isn't particularly meaningful. I vow to get better. I think it makes more sense to change to approved healthcare:speciality with a usage of over 2200 for osteopathy to make evaluations easier, rather than healthcare=osteopath which has only been used once worldwide. | |
| 4 | 2025-02-03 10:14 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - it does make sense to tidy very small numbers of these where they mean the same thing, but the challenge with things like osteopaths is that it's a field that overlaps between regular and "alternative" medicine. The wikipedia article has a bit of background on it - that'... | |
| 161989846 by Brianl1111 @ 2025-01-31 19:45 | 1 | 2025-02-02 21:05 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I suspect that some of the deletions here https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=161989846 have broken the townlands https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5409187 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5372342 .You've also deleted a lot of trees here - can I ask why?Best Reg... |
| 162023145 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-01 19:19 | 1 | 2025-02-01 19:24 | SomeoneElse | ... beyond local knowledge I don't know of a license-compatible source for either. The Eastern one is often referred to (in incompatible-with-OSM sources, including Mark W Jones' "Snickelways of York" book) with a name, and a search for that name finds news articles describing i... |
| 2 | 2025-02-01 19:32 | SomeoneElse | However, old maps suggest a slightly different story. An Ordnance Survey Town Plan of 1889 https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287205 suggests "Pope's Head Alley" for the eastern one and "Peter Lane Passage" for the western.An earlier OS Town Plan from 1851 https://maps.nls.uk/... | |
| 161943008 by James Derrick @ 2025-01-30 15:51 | 1 | 2025-01-30 20:13 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 123965431 by James Derrick @ 2022-07-23 08:07 | 1 | 2025-01-30 14:06 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Are you sure https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1080694372 is a tunnel? It doesn't look like one (see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/287651 ). |
| 2 | 2025-01-30 15:53 | James Derrick ♦78 | Hi,After a check of survey photos and GPX, I think this is an #armchair addition likely from worse imagery.I can remember the factory and services from canal visits to MH, but not this crossing (walked more towards Foxton/ Gumley).Current imagery does look like an informal "flat" cro... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-30 16:16 | James Derrick ♦78 | Hi,Found some Mapillary imagery confirming a flat crossing (handrail to the N):https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=259034485970364Happy Mapping,James | |
| 161452120 by Comino @ 2025-01-17 11:45 | 1 | 2025-01-23 12:14 | JeroenHoek ♦650 | Dit is een huis, niet een partijkantoor. Tevens lijkt er buiten niets te hangen wat op een kantoor wijst, en is er niets waarvoor je zou kunnen betalen met Bitcoin. |
| 2 | 2025-01-23 18:39 | Comino ♦66 | Goedenavond Jeroen,Dit is weldegelijk het partijkantoor van de Libertaire Partij. Kijk daarvoor bijvoorbeeld in het KvK Handelsregister. Het partijbestuur komt hier o.a. bijeen. En o.a. je lidmaatschap kan je betalen in Bitcoin.Edwin | |
| 3 | 2025-01-23 19:31 | JeroenHoek ♦650 | Dat ze daar statutair gevestigd zijn klopt, maar je weet inmiddels ook al dat we geen KvK-adressen op de kaart zetten tenzij er ter plekke echt wat is. Dit is (wederom) een huis zonder kantoor van een kleine politieke partij.Daarnaast kun je daar ter plekke niets kopen (waar de payment-tags voor... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-23 21:27 | Comino ♦66 | Greenpeace, Rode Kruis, diverse stichtingen wel, allemaal plekken waar je niets kan kopen, maar een politieke partij niet? Die begrijp ik niet. | |
| 5 | 2025-01-23 21:48 | JeroenHoek ♦650 | Die hebben stuk voor stuk een echt kantoor. Zonder kantoor zetten we die trouwens ook niet op de kaart. De kaart zou vol staan met stichtingen, ZZP'ers, en webshops in woonwijken als we dat wel deden, terwijl je er ter plekke niets kan. Kijk maar eens naar Google Maps om te zien wat voor zinloz... | |
| 6 | 2025-01-30 13:23 | SomeoneElse | @Comino - yes, @JeroenHoek is correct here. If you'd like to discuss it with more people you can do that in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43 . | |
| 7 | 2025-01-30 13:23 | SomeoneElse | @Comino - ja, @JeroenHoek heeft hier gelijk. Als je het met meer mensen wilt bespreken, kun je dat doen op het forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43 . | |
| 161910508 by jajanja3 @ 2025-01-29 19:11 | 1 | 2025-01-29 23:21 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | Hello jajanja3,There's a gap in the Saxon Shore Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8864#map=19/51.383975/0.507900 - do you know how it joins there?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-01-30 11:06 | jajanja3 ♦2 | Hi , I"ve got no idea , I could try finding out for you . Hopefully some body local can update itThanks | |
| 3 | 2025-01-30 12:46 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - I've added a note at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4607601 so that hopefully someone local should see it. | |
| 161335376 by ocnoc @ 2025-01-14 08:06 | 1 | 2025-01-24 13:33 | SomeoneElse | Hello,After the change here, there,s a gap in the Offaly Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4112772#map=17/53.201926/-7.725653 . I'm guessing the path is blocked - do you know if the Offaly Way has been rerouted?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-01-26 19:06 | ocnoc ♦1 | Hi Andy, The Offaly way has changed route slightly in Boora. I'll get out on the bike from the canal and see where it goes exactly and update it.Further along, before Cadamstown, it was blocked by land ownersColm | |
| 3 | 2025-01-26 19:09 | SomeoneElse | Great - thanks! | |
| 4 | 2025-01-26 19:29 | ocnoc ♦1 | Fixed. Didn't realise I "broke" the track when I corrected the track.Thanks for letting me know | |
| 147752346 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-02-21 22:46 | 1 | 2025-01-26 18:46 | phodgkin ♦62 | The gate on the tertiary road Apperley Road:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147752346#map=19/53.837415/-1.705963looks a bit odd.Could this have been a temporary closure? I didn't see anything when I passed on 25 Jan 2025 - clear way through to the A658 from the junction with App... |
| 2 | 2025-01-26 18:52 | SomeoneElse | Correct - there's no gate now. There was about a year ago, when it was closed for flood defence works. Someone spotted that the road had reopened about 3 months ago, and when I was there just before Christmas that bit of road was fully open (and the pub seemed to have had a much-needed lick o... | |
| 161724567 by ViriatoLusitano @ 2025-01-24 18:53 | 1 | 2025-01-25 11:07 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - this, and "Cork No. 5 ED" reappeared in the database. |
| 161715912 by alain2003 @ 2025-01-24 14:59 | 1 | 2025-01-24 17:54 | SomeoneElse | As I understand it, the licence situation is that the licence under which this data was published isn't compatible with OSM. We (the DWG) suggested asking for a waiver. I believe that an email was sent asking for a waiver, but I don't believe that it was followed up.At best, the haste be... |
| 2 | 2025-01-24 17:57 | SomeoneElse | Where there are many interlinked changes, osm-revert is a terrible choice for undoing changes.Please do not use it in situations like this. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-24 18:02 | SomeoneElse | The options for tidying up from here are a manual fix of each relation one at a time, adding all the missing pieces (which is a lot of work), or a "big revert" of everything - both the initial import and the osm-revert attenpts. The "big revert" with tools that actually workwill ... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-24 21:27 | alain2003 ♦22 | HiSorry for this big mess i made,i was not aware that the revert program could do that damage.I can ftry to fix all these broken boundaries by hand with the original boundaries(shapefiles)retrived from osm by GADM witch the licence i believe is compatible.but it will as you said very much ti... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-24 22:07 | SomeoneElse | @alain2003 - OK, thanks - let me know if you need the DWG to pick up any reverts. | |
| 6 | 2025-01-25 13:47 | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦199 | alain2003 can you share these files so I can jump in and help fix the boundaries??? | |
| 160436218 by alain2003 @ 2024-12-20 14:32 | 1 | 2024-12-20 14:35 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Under what licence is data from data.humdata.org made available?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-12-20 16:21 | alain2003 ♦22 | https://data.humdata.org/faqs/licenses | |
| 3 | 2024-12-20 16:45 | SomeoneElse | That's just a list.Under what licence(s) is the data from data.humdata.org that you actually used made available? | |
| 4 | 2024-12-20 19:27 | alain2003 ♦22 | https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/ | |
| 5 | 2024-12-20 19:29 | alain2003 ♦22 | Open Database License (ODC-ODbL)Under the ODC-ODbL license, you are free: To Share: To copy, distribute and use the database. To Create: To produce works from the database. To Adapt: To modify, transform and build upon the database.As long as you: Attribute: You mus... | |
| 6 | 2024-12-20 19:54 | SomeoneElse | That page says "You can share your data on HDX under one of the following Creative Commons licenses. ".Where is the page that says that the data that you are using from there is ODBL?Also, what is the source? Someone must have uploaded it to this site - where from? | |
| 7 | 2024-12-20 21:21 | alain2003 ♦22 | ooh,you mean the dataset files?these are shapefileshttps://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-mar | |
| 8 | 2024-12-20 23:24 | alain2003 ♦22 | Can we use this dataset or not? | |
| 9 | 2024-12-20 23:55 | SomeoneElse | I think that we'd need to get a waiver, unless one has already been obtained.Onhttps://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-marit says "License Creative Commons Attribution for Intergovernmental Organisations". That links to the licences page where it says "Creative Commons A... | |
| 10 | 2024-12-21 01:23 | alain2003 ♦22 | HiI'ts best to revert all the changes i made on boundaries.This license is very vage .cannot be used in osmi do not even know how to revert these changes. | |
| 11 | 2024-12-21 02:13 | SomeoneElse | I'd suggest that you at least ask about a waiver before reverting everything!Perhaps ask in the forum c.osm.org ? | |
| 12 | 2024-12-21 02:34 | alain2003 ♦22 | HiSince the new forum,have no acces to it.connot register nor login./auth/failure?message=csrf_detected | |
| 13 | 2024-12-21 04:02 | SomeoneElse | I'm sure it'll be fixed soon. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/there-seems-to-be-a-problem-with-authorisation-currently/123139/9 . | |
| 14 | 2024-12-21 09:36 | ilias_ ♦217 | Let’s not jump to conclusions too fast, the edits alain2003 made (apart from the fact they took hours and hours of work) are extremely valuable to the country, as administrative boundaries were inaccurate. I have sent an email to the United Nations OCHA (creators of the dataset) asking them fo... | |
| 15 | 2024-12-21 15:15 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 16 | 2025-01-24 15:22 | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦199 | Please, please, please stop reverting the changesets, you are making mess on the map, now all neighboring countries relations are also broken. Lets discuss this with OCHA to see if they give a vaiwer in the next week and with DWG about doing proper reverts. | |
| 17 | 2025-01-24 18:11 | SomeoneElse | I did (earlier today or yesterday) privately suggest to wait a bit longer for a reply. Unfortunately, that did not happen.I suspect that it will be a lot of work to undo the mess now, going either forward or backward. | |
| 18 | 2025-01-24 18:18 | ilias_ ♦217 | Alain2003 started reverting the changes not because we did not get a reply, but because we actually got one, from the government organization from which the data is sourced. As you can see on https://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-mar, it says "Sourced from Le Haut Commissariat au Plan". ... | |
| 19 | 2025-01-24 19:08 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - I was unaware that we'd had an explicit "no" from the data source. | |
| 20 | 2025-01-24 19:24 | ilias_ ♦217 | Sure - for the anecdote, I even asked a “director of statistics and cartography”, how come if they cannot legally provide us with this data, that it can be found on many websites, and his answer was “Honestly, I have no idea”. How can we contribute with people like this? Anyw... | |
| 21 | 2025-01-25 11:38 | Aleksandar Matejevic ♦199 | Sorry if I have upset you, but we were lacking the info that you already got a hard no as an answer. Can you just reply here when all the reverts are done, so we can jump in a and fix broken things. If you want you can also use https://salmon-grass-0d758fe03.4.azurestaticapps.net/ to find broken bou... | |
| 161465765 by Maziar Soltanpour @ 2025-01-17 18:02 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-17 20:01 | xYashaRx ♦180 | This is my proof from neshan.org The source of its map data for Tabriz city is one of the official sources of the municipality image: https://imgur.com/a/RrCUfXJ |
| 2 | 2025-01-18 10:39 | SomeoneElse | Can either one of you link to a photograph of the actual street sign? | |
| 3 | 2025-01-18 10:39 | SomeoneElse | آیا یکی از شما می تواند به عکسی از تابلوی خیابان واقعی پیوند دهد؟ | |
| 4 | 2025-01-18 11:42 | xYashaRx ♦180 | I am not in tabriz but live in iran and I'm sure the municipality never uses a strange name "دلتنگی" for naming a street!. the real name is "دانشگاه" It means university because this street is next to the university. and this user never answer my comments to... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-24 15:15 | SomeoneElse | Somewhat related to the lack of response from Maziar Soltanpour here, there's been a block on that account: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17148 . | |
| 153407341 by Locator @ 2024-07-01 11:23 | 1 | 2025-01-24 13:20 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Is there a signed diversion for the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/957011 ? Best Regards,Andy |
| 159050170 by jenk_ @ 2024-11-12 13:23 | 1 | 2025-01-24 13:16 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like this changeset has introduced a gap in the Teesdale Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/957011 . Is there really no way to get from https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/797941104 to the other side of the road?Best Regards,Andy |
| 160171412 by mrpacmanmap @ 2024-12-11 14:32 | 1 | 2025-01-24 12:30 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Is there really no way to get from the footpath here to the other side of the road? https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=52.514468%2C-2.017778%3B52.514101%2C-2.018011#map=17/52.515101/-2.019231Best Regards,Andy |
| 161612142 by ViriatoLusitano @ 2025-01-21 18:58 | 1 | 2025-01-24 12:15 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like after this edit https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12488720 has a gap in it. Previously it was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1XEG . I wonder if something was deleted here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-01-24 12:18 | SomeoneElse | Similarly also https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12488357 , which is the other side of the boundary. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-24 12:19 | SomeoneElse | Also was it planned to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5469858/history , which was Ballintemple townland? | |
| 4 | 2025-01-24 16:18 | ViriatoLusitano ♦153 | Hello Andy,Once more I appreciate finding these issues for me. I will fix them now. | |
| 5 | 2025-01-24 18:54 | ViriatoLusitano ♦153 | The Ballintemple had an erroneous exclave that I removed. | |
| 6 | 2025-04-30 22:47 | VictorIE ♦911 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12521136845I'm not sure that townlands need to be double-mapped.Note that this one is spelled "Spital-lands" https://www.logainm.ie/en/13749"Spital" is short for "Hospital". | |
| 161633328 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-01-22 11:08 | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 161450517, 161450593, 161450614, 161450659, 161450729, 161450770, 161450810, 161450832, 161451642, 161451742, 161451803, 161451847, 161451873, 161451946, 161451988, 161452094, 161630648, 161632137. |
| 161451873 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:37 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-17 11:44 | Jordi MF ♦1,627 | Utilizar las Minutas del IGN no son indicativo de que en castellano se denominen así los topónimos. Las Minutas están llenas de errores ortográficos, de transliteraciones y de errores de comprensión de los ingenieros de caminos que recopilaron la información... |
| 2 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 | |
| 161450832 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:02 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161451946 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:39 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161450729 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:59 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-17 11:29 | Jordi MF ♦1,627 | Oficialmente, el nombre del cabo es "Cap de Martí" segons l'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua. Por lo tanto, no es Cap de Sant Martí. |
| 2 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 | |
| 161451988 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:41 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161450593 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:55 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161450659 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:57 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161450770 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:00 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-17 11:27 | Jordi MF ♦1,627 | ¿Qué fuente de datos para indica que el topónimo "los Pallers de Jávea" existe? |
| 2 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 | |
| 161450810 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:01 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161630648 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-22 09:53 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161632137 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-22 10:32 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161452094 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:44 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161451847 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:36 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161451642 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:29 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161451742 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:33 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161450614 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:55 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161451803 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:35 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161450517 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:53 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-22 11:08 | SomeoneElse | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133 |
| 161619821 by jajanja3 @ 2025-01-22 00:51 | 1 | 2025-01-22 09:47 | SomeoneElse | Hello jajanja3 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!It'd be great if you could be a bit more descriptive than "Modifying & Creating New Features" when adding changeset comments. If you have a read of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments it'll explain a bit m... |
| 161584640 by Jules Bertholet @ 2025-01-21 03:04 | 1 | 2025-01-21 15:23 | SomeoneElse | Hello,There's actually a discussion going on about how best to name this in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571/43 - I'd suggest joining that.Best Regards,Andy |
| 161592474 by Mappam-12 @ 2025-01-21 09:31 | 1 | 2025-01-21 15:22 | SomeoneElse | Hello,There's actually a discussion going on about how best to name this in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571/43 - I'd suggest joining that.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-01-21 19:37 | PinguDEV ♦9 | Also, why did you (@Mappam-12) add a check_data? For what is it? That the Gulf hasn't drowned? | |
| 3 | 2025-01-21 19:55 | Mappam-12 ♦1 | I believe I did it by mistake, but let’s just stick with the idea that the gulf has drowned and needs checking haha. | |
| 76997557 by James Derrick @ 2019-11-13 08:18 | 1 | 2025-01-18 15:55 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | Hello - a quick question about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/742792269/history . That was a "bridge=aqueduct" and "layer=1". It then changed to "bridge=aqueduct", "tunnel=culvert" and "layer=-1". I'm guessing that this might have been by ... |
| 2 | 2025-01-20 08:58 | James Derrick ♦78 | Hi,Looking back some years, I'm not finding direct cycle survey images so this must be an "armchair" edit from imagery and local knowledge from nearby roads.A fair chunk of this leet is in a "cutting" (presumably to reduce evaporation and to reduce gravity flow) so was... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-21 01:45 | SomeoneElse | Looking at the wider area on imagery there's definitely more tunnel=culvert that I'd have expected - I guess it's below ground level, but there's nothing over the top of it (apart from the bridges). https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/742792269/history looks like an aqueduct with ... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-21 10:47 | James Derrick ♦78 | Hi,> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/742792269/history>looks like an aqueduct with nothing over the top of it and the stream underneath? Agree - more of a "surface aqueduct" to bridge over a small river valley depression than a soaring structure.I've made the cha... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-21 10:53 | SomeoneElse | Yes (with the big caveat that I'm not at all familiar with the area!).Thanks,Andy | |
| 160827151 by little_maper @ 2024-12-31 10:54 | 1 | 2025-01-17 10:30 | okainov ♦12 | Hi!I see you have updated a few roads in historic ruins in Oman using tag "digitalEgypt", was this intended? The footways were marked intentionally, what was the reason for this change? |
| 2 | 2025-01-19 12:36 | little_maper ♦87 | Hello okainov;Thank you for reaching out.I updated roads based on a few cars that appear in the satellite image in this area and thank you for your edits.Regardslittle_maper | |
| 3 | 2025-01-19 13:17 | okainov ♦12 | Some of those streets are not even wide enough for cars and you should be able to clearly see those are ruins. | |
| 4 | 2025-01-19 13:52 | little_maper ♦87 | Hello okainov;Thank you for bringing my attention to that and happy mapping!Regardslittle_maper | |
| 5 | 2025-01-21 02:01 | SomeoneElse | A bit more info - there's a discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edits-by-digitalegypt-not-aligned-with-reality/124533 . It'd be great if you could comment there. | |
| 160778143 by Merna_mahmoud @ 2024-12-30 07:07 | 1 | 2025-01-19 12:43 | okainov ♦12 | Hi! Could you please clarify the reason for this change? The streets in in area of old ruins are indeed with square corners, your changeset have changed the geometry to "smooth" them somehow and that's not how I mapped those and not how they're in reality. --- ... |
| 2 | 2025-01-20 08:29 | Merna_mahmoud ♦12 | Hi okainov,Thank you for your message. I modified it to improve the shape and treat the sharp angel because crossing on slopesThank you.Merna_mahmoud | |
| 3 | 2025-01-21 02:01 | SomeoneElse | A bit more info - there's a discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edits-by-digitalegypt-not-aligned-with-reality/124533 . It'd be great if you could comment there. | |
| 160595598 by salma_ayman @ 2024-12-25 08:32 | 1 | 2025-01-19 13:02 | okainov ♦12 | Hi!Could you please explain the reason for this change? I've explicitly removed "access=private" from some roads because they are not private and accessible by general public (even though being close to military zone). |
| 2 | 2025-01-21 02:01 | SomeoneElse | For info, there's a discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edits-by-digitalegypt-not-aligned-with-reality/124533 . It'd be great if you could comment there. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-21 08:49 | salma_ayman ♦13 | Hello Okainov,Thank you for reaching out.I added the access tag based on my understanding of the military area's restrictions for public access. I appreciate your clarification regarding the comment and your efforts to review and remove tags as needed.However, I would like to kindly reque... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-21 09:03 | okainov ♦12 | I've updated the indicated roads as well, thanks. | |
| 154232941 by hofoen @ 2024-07-21 18:56 | 1 | 2025-01-18 16:36 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302914758/history really both underground _and_ a bridge?That seems an odd combination.Best Regards,Andy |
| 161496057 by AvidFan @ 2025-01-18 15:35 | 1 | 2025-01-18 15:45 | SomeoneElse | Hello again AvidFan,Just a reminder - lots of other mappers (including me!) have commented on your changes, and have let you know the problems that you have caused. You can see these comments at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10965811 . Before doing any other OpenStree... |
| 161472750 by CD Mapper @ 2025-01-17 22:14 | 1 | 2025-01-18 11:36 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!Just to let you know, after this edit there was a bit of a gap in the relation for the Sperrins AONB. I created https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1352303735 and added it to the relation to fill it in.Let me know if you've got any questions.Cheers,Andy |
| 161406832 by BCNorwich @ 2025-01-16 07:48 | 1 | 2025-01-16 20:18 | SomeoneElse | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161360974 for info |
| 161399796 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2025-01-16 00:24 | 1 | 2025-01-16 20:18 | SomeoneElse | See comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161360974 for info |
| 161360974 by Bob Roach @ 2025-01-14 22:08 | 1 | 2025-01-16 20:17 | SomeoneElse | Hello Bob, and welcome back to OSM.Can you explain a bit more what you mean about "delete unwanted lines" here?The deletion of e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42250174 seems to be of something that, according to the available imagery, still exists. Is it really not like that an... |
| 161073737 by mapeing @ 2025-01-06 20:33 | 1 | 2025-01-09 12:47 | SomeoneElse | Hello,After this edit there is a bit of a gap in the Saxon Shore Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8864#map=19/51.394665/0.563562 .Does it follow the diagonal path or the footpath that cuts the corner?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-01-14 13:07 | SomeoneElse | No reply, so I've fixed this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161344574 . | |
| 106716204 by vladimir_gnedko @ 2021-06-21 12:41 | 1 | 2025-01-14 01:59 | SomeoneElse | Just checking - are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8852902468/history is a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Demergency_access_point as described on that page? |
| 160437605 by NTSamJones @ 2024-12-20 15:10 | 1 | 2025-01-10 11:02 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!It looks like this edit might have introduced a gap in the "Sandstone Trail" relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/50726#map=18/53.074166/-2.745740 . Previously that didn't have a gap: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1WV5 .Do you think you... |
| 2 | 2025-01-13 18:07 | NTSamJones ♦1 | hi yes please the trail goes Alone Bickerton FP10, the path that it followed that I deleted was a desire line.cheers sam | |
| 3 | 2025-01-13 18:16 | SomeoneElse | OK - done! | |
| 161238392 by Andy James 93 @ 2025-01-11 13:03 | 1 | 2025-01-13 11:30 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I just wondered whether places like the bridge at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8595349#map=19/50.991481/-2.808351 were supposed to be still part of that cycle relation? Also see http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=8595349 .Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-01-13 13:46 | Andy James 93 ♦2 | Hi AndyThe whole length from Langport to Barrington should have changed relation, it looks like i've missed some short bits out, or they havent saved. Welcome to correct it if you'd like to, or if not I can next time i'm on my desktop pc. Many thanksAndy | |
| 3 | 2025-01-13 14:05 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - I'll let you fix it since you know what should be what. There's no great urgency... | |
| 161163270 by Sigmund73 @ 2025-01-09 10:08 | 1 | 2025-01-11 10:35 | SomeoneElse | Hello,OpenStreetMap is a map of real things in the real world. Don't add made-up names.Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group |
| 2 | 2025-01-11 10:35 | SomeoneElse | Salve,OpenStreetMap è una mappa di cose reali nel mondo reale. Non aggiungere nomi inventati.Cordiali saluti,Andy Townsend, a nome del Data Working Group di OSM | |
| 3 | 2025-01-11 11:04 | Sigmund73 ♦1 | It's surveyed, as declared in changeset comment.https://ibb.co/mbkBrPk | |
| 4 | 2025-01-11 11:07 | SomeoneElse | How come the stall at the back isn't labelled "Stalin" then? | |
| 5 | 2025-01-12 10:02 | Sigmund73 ♦1 | Your sarcasm don't help OSM. Please revert your deletion. | |
| 6 | 2025-01-12 10:27 | SomeoneElse | It's not sarcasm. Both signs are clearly unofficial. One an a4 piece of paper temporarily attached to a wall for the photo, the other a graffito sprayed on it. If anything, "stalin" is likely to be the more permanent of the two | |
| 161214185 by YerevanTreeMap @ 2025-01-10 17:21 | 1 | 2025-01-10 19:59 | Glassman ♦5,240 | Please stop this import until you have followed the import guideline as outlined on the wiki. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines |
| 2 | 2025-01-11 06:33 | YerevanTreeMap ♦2 | OK | |
| 3 | 2025-01-11 08:23 | YerevanTreeMap ♦2 | We did create an Organized Editing Activity page in the wiki, it includes a description of how the process goes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Yerevan_Tree_Map#Import_planThere is no dataset to import per se. We had around 4k trees in our local database and th... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-11 14:45 | SomeoneElse | > Do we still need a complex import plan described for this, with revert plan etc?Yes, if you want the data you have already imported to stay in OSM rather than be reverted.You were told what you need to do via the comments to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/YerevanTreeMap/diary/4059... | |
| 5 | 2025-01-11 14:47 | SomeoneElse | Re the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Yerevan_Tree_Map#Import_plan page, you created that AFTER this import:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Organised_Editing/Activities/Yerevan_Tree_Map&action=history | |
| 6 | 2025-01-11 16:45 | YerevanTreeMap ♦2 | Yes I have created the wiki page after I was pointed to that requirement, as a sign of respect. I did discuss this with the local OSM community and they have no issues with our activity.Also, I see in the organized editing guideline page the following text:> The Data Working group will i... | |
| 7 | 2025-01-11 16:55 | SomeoneElse | > Do you think there are issues with edits in this changeset?Hopefully not, but I've genuinely no idea. If there are any issues I'm sure they'll become clear when the community has had chance to review the import plan and the data already uploaded, licence details, etc. | |
| 161230451 by YerevanTreeMap @ 2025-01-11 08:41 | 1 | 2025-01-11 08:42 | YerevanTreeMap ♦2 | #YerevanTreeMaptesting if comments are linking |
| 2 | 2025-01-11 14:43 | SomeoneElse | Can you please point to where you have gone through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines (as mentioned at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/YerevanTreeMap/diary/405949#comment58642 )? | |
| 3 | 2025-01-11 17:00 | YerevanTreeMap ♦2 | Process -- done, discussed with local community, decided that the data we collect is of public value and should be added to OSM.Step 1.Gain familiairty withe the basics of OSM -- done, long ago.Revide what can go wrong with imports -- read.Identify data you'd like to import -- done, i... | |
| 161186246 by Vpr65 @ 2025-01-09 22:09 | 1 | 2025-01-10 10:45 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Just so you know, I think that something in this changeset might have deleted something that was the boundary of a couple of townlands - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4161139 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4161138 . The previous situation of one of them can be seen at h... |
| 2 | 2025-01-10 12:03 | Vpr65 ♦1 | Hi AndyThanks for calling my error out. I intended to delete a "non-existent" road way unfortunately I appear to also have deleted the boundary associated with this road way.I would be very grateful if you could fix this.Thanks again Vincent | |
| 3 | 2025-01-10 21:29 | SomeoneElse | No problem. I've filled in the gaps, and the two townlands seem valid as polygons again.One thought though - the eastern bit of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1350089485 looks a bit like a dirt farm track (I presume a private one). Would it be correct to add those tags? The western bi... | |
| 161194924 by rene78 @ 2025-01-10 07:51 | 1 | 2025-01-10 15:59 | SomeoneElse | Hello,> Might not be a 100% accurate.Please don't do this. Mapping recent events based on news reporting is hugely problematic. OSM often sees this in war zones, where something has happened but the initial reports about what may not be 100% correct. I suspect that the situation h... |
| 2 | 2025-01-10 16:12 | rene78 ♦446 | Hi Andy,I understand your concerns, and they’re valid. However, in this case, the YouTube videos provide high-quality aerial views. I’d estimate the error rate for houses incorrectly marked as “destroyed:building” to be well below 5%. Who knows—this might even serve... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-10 20:21 | Glassman ♦5,240 | Please consult with the OSM US community before making more edits involving the wildfire. I'd strongly suggest joining the OSM US Slack by going to osmus.slack.com. Discussions are being held in the #disasters channel. | |
| 4 | 2025-01-15 17:16 | Brendan_07 ♦4 | A more accurate source of data for this would be from the actual inspections: https://recovery.lacounty.gov/palisades-fire/ | |
| 161201098 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-01-10 11:16 | 1 | 2025-01-10 11:24 | SomeoneElse | See my comments at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160174336 . No reply there, so I re-added it here. |
| 160174336 by aaliyahmcvey @ 2024-12-11 15:51 | 1 | 2024-12-12 13:57 | SomeoneElse | Hello,In this changeset you've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26579103 , which was a cycleway between the bridge over the railway and Market Street. Is that really no longer there? If not, how does the Isle of Anglesey Coast Path join now? You can see that there are two gaps at ... |
| 2 | 2024-12-12 14:01 | SomeoneElse | Hello,One more thing - you've deleted some things that were previously mapped here such as the Co-Op https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158249037/history and remapped it with far less detail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341830684 . Was the previous detail wrong, or should the old tag... | |
| 3 | 2025-01-10 11:21 | SomeoneElse | I've re-added the deleted cycle path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161201098 . If that's wrong, please do let me know. | |
| 161152901 by mapeing @ 2025-01-09 01:20 | 1 | 2025-01-09 10:11 | SomeoneElse | Hello again mapeing,I suspect that the information that you have added here doesn't actually reflect reality. For example, if you wanted to cross the road here, I'm sure that you would not need to follow this route: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&ro... |
| 161097526 by ViriatoLusitano @ 2025-01-07 14:21 | 1 | 2025-01-08 10:43 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I think this edit might have caused some problems with relations.If you have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11060057 you can see that it now has a gap in it, but a few days ago it didn't https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1WNb .Other affected relations might include1104... |
| 2 | 2025-01-08 12:34 | ViriatoLusitano ♦153 | Thank you for the heads up Andy, I will fix these now. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-09 09:42 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - "Whitechurch Parish" et al have popped back into the database this morning. | |
| 161143984 by eteb3 @ 2025-01-08 18:33 | 1 | 2025-01-08 20:45 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 161130011 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-01-08 11:33 | 1 | 2025-01-08 11:38 | SomeoneElse | Grr - forgot to close changeset - and the second part of this (unconnected) is "filled in gap in NCN61_R 31640".There's nothing between Knaresborough and Welwyn in here. |
| 154954447 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-08-07 21:27 | 1 | 2024-08-07 21:31 | SomeoneElse | Opinions differ about future status.Local press has "owners on holiday but will not reopen", another has "long term closed", and a rumour in another York pub is that another (well known) local landlord is likely to take it on.None of which contradicts that it's currently... |
| 2 | 2025-01-07 22:09 | SomeoneElse | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161112751 | |
| 161112751 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-01-07 21:57 | 1 | 2025-01-07 22:02 | SomeoneElse | Edits to other tags are obviously a bit guesswork - it'll probably look like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1080265350 but with food available (I'm guessing that the lino is for the bin, the OGM name will go and the outdoor seating will stay). |
| 161066770 by Donut Master 🍩 @ 2025-01-06 16:59 | 1 | 2025-01-06 22:08 | SomeoneElse | Hello klaratabaku914 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!One question - what were the issues that you fixed here? A changeset comment of "Fixed issues" doesn't really help explain...Best Regards,Andy |
| 160944385 by Richard @ 2025-01-03 11:30 | 1 | 2025-01-04 20:21 | SomeoneElse | I've mentioned this again at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/its-time-to-address-the-a8-m/117468/11 ; I'd suggest that that is probably the best place to discuss.Best Regards,Andy |
| 160971239 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2025-01-04 00:12 | 1 | 2025-01-04 20:20 | SomeoneElse | I've mentioned this again at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/its-time-to-address-the-a8-m/117468/11 ; I'd suggest that that is probably the best place to discuss.Best Regards,Andy |
| 130415897 by kesterlester @ 2022-12-23 11:03 | 1 | 2025-01-03 22:11 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1122844274/history#map=17/52.566282/-1.431790 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1122862056/history#map=18/52.566262/-1.431788 the same thing? They're both gas pipelines in the same area.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-01-04 00:09 | kesterlester ♦10 | They are related but not the same thing. pipeline with tag "gas" is where the pipeline actually is -- a geographical entry -- which is often hard to know precisely as you don't always get crop marks etc. pipeline with tag "gas_topology" is a route connecting notes where th... | |
| 160939623 by train_01 @ 2025-01-03 09:24 Active block | 1 | 2025-01-03 17:00 | SomeoneElse | Hello train_01,Andy from OSM’s Data Working Group here.Each of your edits has a changeset comment of “.”. This doesn’t help other mappers understand what you’re actually doing. Also, lots of users have tried to get in touch with you via your changesets. These will... |
| 2 | 2025-01-03 17:00 | SomeoneElse | Cześć train_01,Andy z OSM’s Data Working Group tutaj.Każda z Twoich edycji ma komentarz do zestawu zmian „.”. To nie pomaga innym maperom zrozumieć, co właściwie robisz. Ponadto wielu użytkowników próbowało się z Tobą skontaktować za pośrednictwem Tw... | |
| 160941584 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2025-01-03 10:21 | 1 | 2025-01-03 10:21 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 160818787, 160914483, 160914790. |
| 2 | 2025-01-03 10:39 | SomeoneElse | See comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160914790 | |
| 160914790 by meongseolin @ 2025-01-02 16:00 | 1 | 2025-01-03 10:21 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160941584 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed border changes around Georgia / Abkhazia |
| 2 | 2025-01-03 10:23 | SomeoneElse | Hello meongseolin,You've twice tried to change the admin boundary levels here and it has twice been changed back. If you thing that something is wrong, please discuss on the forum c.osm.org .Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group | |
| 3 | 2025-01-03 10:24 | SomeoneElse | 你好 meongseolin，你曾两次尝试更改此处的管理边界级别，但两次都被改回。如果您认为有什么问题，请在论坛 c.osm.org 上讨论。此致，Andy Townsend，代表 OSM 数据工作组 | |
| 160701601 by Roadwaykeith @ 2024-12-28 06:45 Active block | 1 | 2024-12-28 08:36 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Are you mapping only in places you visited in person?Or are you using Google Street View or you are guessing.As one of authors of StreetComplete: please, use it only for objects that you seen in person |
| 2 | 2024-12-28 17:01 | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17010@mateusz - will SC display a 0-hour block to the user? | |
| 3 | 2024-12-28 22:38 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | No idea. I guess that I will need to test it on dev server. | |
| 4 | 2024-12-30 23:18 | SomeoneElse | See https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6062#issuecomment-2564842136 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-this-the-same-person/123461 . | |
| 5 | 2025-01-03 03:04 | Roadwaykeith Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 6 | 2025-01-03 03:10 | SomeoneElse | You cannot use Google Street View to update OSM because the licence is not compatible | |
| 7 | 2025-01-03 11:21 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601 | |
| 57514314 by abc26324 @ 2018-03-25 18:05 | 1 | 2025-01-02 14:30 | SomeoneElse | Are you sure that there is a ridge crossing Scampton's main runway? I think it might cause something of an obstacle to people taking off... |
| 160717302 by NTWickenFenPaths @ 2024-12-28 14:58 | 1 | 2025-01-01 17:04 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!You've used "wetland=island" here - I'm not sure what that means?You can see what values tend to be used with "wetland" in the UK at https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:united-kingdom/keys/wetland#values and internationally at http... |
| 160833256 by Adam Edwards @ 2024-12-31 13:43 | 1 | 2024-12-31 22:41 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Thanks for updating this here. It looks like NCN12 also routes over that new bit of cycleway, so I've added that too.Best Regards,Andy |
| 157949366 by DaanLT @ 2024-10-16 06:35 | 1 | 2024-10-16 07:02 | dpolovinkin ♦334 | hola again amigo!just noticed - you know it's not correct to make all changeset comments "adittions, clarifications" in OSM mapping, its kinda obvious already and gives 0 info. So can you pls write what exactly did you change or addhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_chang... |
| 2 | 2024-10-16 11:07 | DaanLT ♦106 | yes i know, mostly i map many things at once, so i cant describe everything, but i do proper comments when i map specific things. | |
| 3 | 2024-12-31 13:31 | SomeoneElse | Hello DaanLT,I'm sure you could do a _bit_ better than "additions, corrections" every single time :)Best Regards,Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group) | |
| 160731603 by BlazingTD @ 2024-12-28 22:00 | 1 | 2024-12-31 13:19 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1317612878/history here, but if it's "unsafe and closed to public use" it'd be better to keep the geometry in OSM and change the tag from "highway" to something like "disused:highway" (see https://w... |
| 160666248 by GarliccBread1 @ 2024-12-27 08:49 | 1 | 2024-12-27 18:17 | jjyach ♦31 | If you have concerns of recent edits please comment on them not just "fix" things to incorrect/inconsistent with standards across the map. Thank you. |
| 2 | 2024-12-28 05:38 | GarliccBread1 ♦4 | I understand your concerns, but I am fixing these to correct standards and the most up to date knowledge, not incorrect whatsoever, those paths to the detention ponds only existed during construction of the new science center a year ago, and they no longer exist now, if anything they are at most a t... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-28 06:02 | jjyach ♦31 | All across the map service roads are placed into these drainage basins as they are for service access and have improvements over say a dirt track which is what track is supposed to be used for out in forests or other rural areas with no improvement. Data like this is critical for other entities tha... | |
| 4 | 2024-12-31 13:10 | SomeoneElse | If there's a difference of opinion here, perhaps mention it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 and see what other people have to say?Best Regards,Andy (from the DWG) | |
| 145708545 by CorruptComputer @ 2023-12-30 18:29 | 1 | 2024-12-30 19:00 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | Hello,I've never been here, but are you sure that it's really "billiards" that is played here and not "bar_billiards"? They are two different games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_billiards has more detail. As a game, it's as different from billiards as tab... |
| 2 | 2024-12-30 19:06 | CorruptComputer ♦66 | Honestly I have no idea, about a year ago I went through the billiards tagging to clean it up to the standard that the Wiki had said. I've never heard of Bar Billiards before so at the time I probably just assumed this was a tagging mistake for Bar tables (7ft) as they are generally called ... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-30 19:09 | SomeoneElse | No worries - I can do it. I've just changed the Hop Leaf in Reading (which was definitely bar billiards). | |
| 4 | 2024-12-30 19:14 | CorruptComputer ♦66 | Appreciate you catching that, and thanks for fixing it! | |
| 135124612 by SomeoneElse @ 2023-04-19 22:40 | 1 | 2024-12-30 13:58 | eteb3 ♦113 | Hi,Re the footbridge that is a continuation of the Gale:I passed the on the bike today and the bridge looked to be in use: fresh mud path tramped over the grass and crossing the bridge.I didn’t go up to the bridge itself. On that info is it worth reinstating the bridge, given what you ... |
| 2 | 2024-12-30 14:17 | SomeoneElse | Yes - it was very closed a year ago, but sounds like it's open again now. | |
| 159403540 by mapeing @ 2024-11-21 10:47 | 1 | 2024-11-21 11:29 | SomeoneElse | Hello demisee,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1238686932 has been mapped as a "police=checkpoint" with a name of "Bus Gate" and a long description.Are you sure that's correct? What I'd suggest that you do is to post a photo of it to the forum https://community.... |
| 2 | 2024-11-21 11:53 | mapeing ♦4 | Hi, Thanks for the comment. Although not initially created by me, I noticed this particular feature already existed, but I only updated the description to provide better context on the feature than what was previously there (the wording)However, I would provide a photo but I’m not in t... | |
| 3 | 2024-11-21 12:01 | SomeoneElse | Ah yes - it was added 11 months ago by "Smudge the Cat". It'd be interesting to know what the current situation is.Bus gates tend to get handled by conditional restrictions on the road itself - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions for that. In this case... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-21 21:49 | mapeing ♦4 | Hi,I visited this particular area today, and noticed that the “Bus Gate” is still there, although the colour has faded. Press link provided for the imageSource: https://drive.proton.me/urls/DF6ZV47PPC#JqvnxO5Mg1A6 | |
| 5 | 2024-12-20 19:29 | mapeing ♦4 | https://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/revealed-date-new-town-centre-traffic-camera-goes-live-317700/ | |
| 6 | 2024-12-26 23:20 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 159271399 by mtbtoo @ 2024-11-18 08:10 | 1 | 2024-12-23 15:08 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160541857 where the changeset comment is: Revert changes on Rawcliffe landing, both initial accidental duplicate and subsequent partial fix |
| 2 | 2024-12-23 15:19 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!It was me that forgot to clarify that that foot and bicycle access was permitted, back in 2022 - see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/32493721 . I've undone the duplicate cycle path here, since there isn't one, but clarified the... | |
| 160422290 by Gleb_Artyomenko @ 2024-12-20 08:06 | 1 | 2024-12-23 15:08 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160541857 where the changeset comment is: Revert changes on Rawcliffe landing, both initial accidental duplicate and subsequent partial fix |
| 2 | 2024-12-23 15:15 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for trying to fix this - unfortunately it still left a duplicate cycleway in place that does not exist. I've reverted both this and the changeset that caused the initial issue, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159271399 .Chan you check that all now looks OK at your end? | |
| 3 | 2025-01-08 09:14 | Gleb_Artyomenko ♦27 | Hello! Thank you for your feedback! I will take this into account in the future. After your correction, everything looks fine. | |
| 58085761 by SomeoneElse @ 2018-04-14 09:59 | 1 | 2024-12-22 15:59 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5552177150/history has shop = homeware that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)shop=homeware ? What kind of shop, if any is here? Is it intentionally used instead of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=houseware ? If yes, what i... |
| 2 | 2024-12-22 16:45 | SomeoneElse | A quick web search suggests that wholesale wicker baskets seems to be their thing, so fill your boots based on that. | |
| 144024567 by gmar5 @ 2023-11-14 19:57 | 1 | 2024-12-22 10:11 | SomeoneElse | Hello,The access tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/355992929/historythat was added here was "privateclientelism". Someone's changed that to "customers;private" (which isn't particularly meaningful). What was the access tag supposed to be here - I'm gu... |
| 2 | 2024-12-22 11:07 | gmar5 ♦69 | Thank you for spotting that. Yes, it was certainly a typo. I have changed it to private only, since it looks like parking for the school. | |
| 3 | 2024-12-22 12:33 | SomeoneElse | Great, thanks! | |
| 160243325 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2024-12-13 12:04 | 1 | 2024-12-14 00:09 | kitsee ♦96 | I'm reverting this. Please go and discuss stuff like this before making drastic changes. You cant just stroll into an area and force your standards upon everyone else. This is getting silly. if you haven't noticed I've micro mapped this entire town in high detail. There are 4 islands ... |
| 2 | 2024-12-17 13:50 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | You are being incredibly rude, obstructive, and hypocritical, speaking of myself "forcing your standards" on an area, and then forcing your own "standards" yourself just because (I presume) you live here. You do not own any part of the map, as do I. And no, this road should not b... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-17 14:43 | kitsee ♦96 | You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I am forcing my standard on this area because 80%+ of the mapping in a 2-3 miles radius around this changeset is my work so my work forms the standard of this area and I will admit I'm rather protective of it. Please understand from my prospecti... | |
| 4 | 2024-12-17 18:07 | SomeoneElse | It'd be greater to see a wider discussion about this, perhaps in the UK part of the forum c.osm.org?Are there photos available along this length (e.g. from Mapillary)? | |
| 5 | 2024-12-17 19:49 | kitsee ♦96 | I agree, i've created a thread here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/residential-road-with-separated-lanes | |
| 160305258 by thebrad1111 @ 2024-12-17 15:21 | 1 | 2024-12-17 15:49 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 160291181 by Matt Aardvar @ 2024-12-14 20:34 | 1 | 2024-12-17 15:34 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Just to let you know, I think that this edit might have introduced a gap in the "Dedham Vale National Landscape" relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9336585 . I've filled in the gap in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160305838 .Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-12-17 15:51 | Matt Aardvar ♦6 | HeyThat was inadvertent!I did think I checked it, but obviously not!Cheers Matt | |
| 127423020 by chris_debian @ 2022-10-12 15:22 | 1 | 2024-12-13 17:38 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Here you've re-added a "highway-path" tag back to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/550162526/history which I'd marked as "note=Still nothing on this alignment" in the hope that that would stop someone re-adding it from some old imagery?I'm not quite sure... |
| 159844014 by lukethesamo @ 2024-12-02 13:49 | 1 | 2024-12-13 09:47 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I wonder if you have any idea how the "Way of Learning" relation connects to the coast? There's a gap in it at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11597074#map=18/54.912007/-1.375525 .Best Regards,Andy |
| 160131859 by Verney Fields @ 2024-12-10 14:30 | 1 | 2024-12-12 23:42 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160226819 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some obviously dubious edits in Stonehouse. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-user-creating-dubious-edits/122862 |
| 2 | 2024-12-12 23:45 | SomeoneElse | Hello "Verney Fields" and welcome to OpenStreetMap.OSM is a map of things as the really exist in the real world. It's not a vehicle for political argument or "satire".You're welcome to continue with OSM as long as you map sensibly, If you don't, you'll b... | |
| 160033487 by Richard @ 2024-12-07 16:53 | 1 | 2024-12-12 14:10 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - from memory https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/109767/history / https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1VAb was never signed as NCN62 but was signed as TPT, so leaving it in just https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4139162 makes sense. |
| 160094187 by lberges @ 2024-12-09 14:16 | 1 | 2024-12-09 21:16 | streckenkundler ♦1,042 | War da nicht was? https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16918 |
| 2 | 2024-12-10 17:42 | SomeoneElse | @lberges Please do discuss this in the forum. You know what will happen if you don't. | |
| 3 | 2024-12-10 18:31 | misterte ♦40 | wieso hast Du hier Westfeld gelöscht anstatt es in addr:suburb=Westfeld zu ändern | |
| 4 | 2024-12-10 18:50 | lberges ♦89 | @SomeoneElse, you can find the detailed discussion in the forum here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/sind-adressen-in-osm-amtlich-oder-postalisch/99332, where I describe what I do, why, and give examples. | |
| 5 | 2024-12-10 18:51 | lberges ♦89 | @misterte addr:suburb ist n.m.M. ein überflüssiges Feld, es wird für die Adressierung eines Briefes oder Paketes in Dtld. nicht benötigt | |
| 6 | 2024-12-10 20:59 | misterte ♦40 | hmm, mappen wir jetzt nur noch Informationen für die Zustellung von Briefen und Paketen ?Die Information Westfeld war vorhanden und sollte daher auch erhalten bleiben.Oder sollen wir jetzt auch die anderen 4,3 Mio. addr:suburb in D entfernen weil sie Deiner Meinung nach überflüssi... | |
| 7 | 2024-12-10 22:13 | streckenkundler ♦1,042 | @lberges Du gibt keine Quellen für deine Änderungen an, die du anscheinend für deine Bearbeitungen nutzt! Der Beitragsfaden wurde bereits bei deinen Sperren genannt... wegen mir auch im Beitragsfaden https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/sind-adressen-in-osm-amtlich-oder-postalisch/99... | |
| 8 | 2024-12-12 21:18 | silversurfer83 ♦3,407 | Ob das jetzt für die Post relevant ist oder nicht ist für uns zweitrangig. Lass die suburbs bitte in den Adressen | |
| 9 | 2024-12-13 08:36 | wies1 ♦144 | Auch ich bin der absoluten Meinung, dass der Name von Ortsteilen einer Gemeinde / Stadt in addr:suburb einzutragen ist, jedenfalls in Deutschland. | |
| 160084668 by fwonp @ 2024-12-09 09:43 | 1 | 2024-12-10 14:17 | SomeoneElse | Hello fwonp,You've added a house here, yet the changeset comment is "swimming"?I'm confused?Best Regards,Andy |
| 160093545 by Simon Hobeck @ 2024-12-09 13:58 | 1 | 2024-12-09 15:28 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 160000227 by Simon Hobeck @ 2024-12-06 15:56 | 1 | 2024-12-09 10:27 | SomeoneElse | Hello on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/724756959/history you've moved the surface tag. Would "surface=mud", "surface=sand", or even "surface=mud;sand" work here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-12-09 10:34 | Simon Hobeck ♦12 | Thanks for asking -I was trying to remove mixed values so either "dirt" or "sand" could work. I was told its often better to clear ambiguous values so other could complete.Do multiple values work? I was trying to follow the guidance for surface area and it wasn't clear i... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-09 12:18 | SomeoneElse | If the surface here is "mostly mud" then I'd probably have gone with "surface=mud" (and "sand" for "mostly sand" nearby).If mutiple values are needed, then senicolons are usually used as separators.Data consumers have the choice whether to use the who... | |
| 4 | 2024-12-09 12:30 | Simon Hobeck ♦12 | Thanks, that is useful - I wasn't aware of taginfo.osm.org.I'm happy to change the values for this area and now feel it may be best just to retain the previous value (I assume if there is a mix, then put the primary item first so the various apps can take that as the single value if th... | |
| 5 | 2024-12-09 13:28 | SomeoneElse | The previous value was a bit odd (comma rather than a semicolon) and so needed changing to something.What is the actual correct value probably depends on survey local knowledge or really good photos.If it was me and it looks like "mostly mud" then I'd use "mud" for the ... | |
| 160073021 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-12-08 23:09 | 1 | 2024-12-08 23:09 | SomeoneElse | It is still listed at https://www.londis.co.uk/our-stores/strensall-service-station , but that might just be a matter of time. |
| 160035333 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-12-07 17:58 | 1 | 2024-12-07 20:42 | SomeoneElse | One thing that I noticed when doing this update was that some paths are signed on the ground as public footpaths but don't appear at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/53.7489/-2.0246/H/P (data from local councils via Rowmaps). I'm assuming that on-the-ground signage trumps... |
| 160027107 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-12-07 13:33 | 1 | 2024-12-07 13:45 | SomeoneElse | This section removed some dupicate abandoned railway that now forms Nidderdale Greenway.Most of the western section of Nidderdale Greenway is clearly exactly on the old railway alignment and was more accurate than the duplicate former railway that had been added from some iffy old map. |
| 159973766 by TheUKHighStreet @ 2024-12-05 21:42 | 1 | 2024-12-05 22:41 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for fixing! |
| 159896347 by brianh @ 2024-12-03 20:43 Active block | 1 | 2024-12-04 11:18 | SomeoneElse | It looks like this has change might have broken some multipolygons (you can see them in the JOSM validator):civil parishes< -2235928 | Taney< -2234306 | StillorganElsewhere these townlands were no longer valid multipolygons this morning:< -4622479 | Rocheshill< ... |
| 2 | 2024-12-05 01:54 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 159938953 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a couple of changes hat broke several multipolygons (at the request of the person who added them) - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159896347 | |
| 3 | 2024-12-05 02:01 | SomeoneElse | OK, as requested by PM, I've reverted this changeset and the related one before it.If you want to see the geometry of the now reverted ways, you can do that with overpass, for example https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Vc4 shows https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1339929485 as it was a couple of hou... | |
| 4 | 2024-12-05 13:25 | SomeoneElse | and for completeness, the "missing" polygons jumped back into the database this morning - for example the historic Anglican parishes:1228a1229> -10742937 | St. Peter's Parish1368a1370> -10709157 | Stillorgan Parish1416a1419> -8851833 | Stillorgan CofI Parish... | |
| 159155446 by Ktr101 @ 2024-11-15 05:31 | 1 | 2024-11-29 00:08 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,044 | We don't generally map features that no longer exist and have been replaced/built over by new features.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1334141039Specifically, I can say with 100% certainty that this feature does not exist, if it ever did. There is no remnants of rail, ties, signals, ... |
| 2 | 2024-11-29 05:24 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,044 | This would be a really good addition to OpenHistoricalMap, which is where historical features that no longer exist can be mapped and live on forever. Also a really cool place where you can tag start/end dates and watch the expansion and slowdown of rail in the US.https://www.openhistoricalmap.o... | |
| 3 | 2024-12-02 16:57 | SomeoneElse | See comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159793833 - in the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1334140977/history at least what would have made most sense to preserve the "railway=abandoned" tag on e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1334140978 , the track that is t... | |
| 159793833 by CurlingMan13 @ 2024-12-01 03:34 | 1 | 2024-12-02 16:54 | SomeoneElse | While https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1334140977/history was pretty obviously an abandoned railway based on the imagery, what would have made most sense here would have been to apply the railway=abandoned (or similar) tag to the extant track here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1334140978 . You... |
| 159811411 by Jèrriais janne @ 2024-12-01 15:58 | 1 | 2024-12-02 12:14 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Your last two edits have broken the Jersey National Park so that it is no longer a valid multipolygon. I suspect that the easiest way to fix it is if I roll back those two edits, you change again what needs to be changed, but then (and this is the important bit) you then check it with JOSM&... |
| 2 | 2024-12-02 12:17 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 159840559 where the changeset comment is: Reverting changes to Jersey National Park boundary that broke it as a multipolygon, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159811411, so that the user can have another go | |
| 3 | 2024-12-02 12:24 | SomeoneElse | OK, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14510149 is a valid relation again. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1V39 will show the relation at this point in time. Your version, which had all the duplication in it, was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1V38 . I'd expect that you'll want to add exis... | |
| 151741384 by SomeoneElseSC @ 2024-05-23 19:56 | 1 | 2024-11-30 17:17 | Yorkcycler ♦1 | (never done any OSM editing)If I understand this correctly, you changed the road type here from unclassified to track. This is incorrect, this is a road used by cars. This now means that routing software for bike rides (cycle.travel) do no longer want to route via this road. Is there a reason why th... |
| 2 | 2024-12-02 10:12 | SomeoneElse | Hello,No idea how that happened - my recollection is that it's definitely an actual road!Best Regards,Andy | |
| 159682035 by c710 @ 2024-11-28 00:30 | 1 | 2024-11-28 10:12 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,393 | Partly reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159682085 |
| 2 | 2024-11-30 14:18 | SomeoneElse | Hello c710,What are you trying to test? Whatever it is, please don't use the live OpenStreetMap server for testing. If you'd like help with whatever you are trying to do, please ask at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7/none .Best Regards,Andy | |
| 150082607 by HaPe-CZ @ 2024-04-16 12:21 | 1 | 2024-11-29 13:00 | SomeoneElse | I've never been here, but the geometry that you've set for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199340825#map=17/42.436709/12.409621 seems extremely unlikely. You're suggesting that there is no railway platform under the railway station roof, which would make it unlike any other railway... |
| 159133998 by RedSkies @ 2024-11-14 15:03 | 1 | 2024-11-14 22:14 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,044 | I have no choice but to again revert this changeset. You removed features that did exist and were verified, such as:You also readded a business that no longer exists and was properly removed.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5405662903This feature was expanded in detail from node to an a... |
| 2 | 2024-11-28 12:19 | SomeoneElse | @RedSkies please do reply to the above comment. | |
| 158466559 by CurlingMan13 @ 2024-10-28 17:38 | 1 | 2024-11-28 12:17 | SomeoneElse | Before asking about the deletion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12294362769/history in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158555897 I'm wondering how a traffic-sign=yes came to be added in a "removed features that no longer exist" changeset? Presumably it also added what ... |
| 2 | 2024-11-28 16:37 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,044 | Correct. Perhaps my changeset comment was a bit too generic. A couple minor/easy additions were made while cleaning up some features. Sorry - I get distracted too easily, hence the handful/occasional addition. Yes, it would have been added from aerial imagery. | |
| 157725548 by Pete Owens @ 2024-10-10 17:11 | 1 | 2024-11-26 15:03 | SomeoneElse | Hello,"bicycle=yes" is the default on highway=trunk roads in the UK (and most worldwide; it's only a few countries that have decided to use an odd definition for trunk).I'm guessing you're working around a limitation of a router not designed to work in the UK?Best Rega... |
| 2 | 2024-11-28 09:49 | Pete Owens ♦55 | On the editor the default is shown as "bicycle=Not Specified" for trunk roads (exactly the same as for pavements). Primary roads are OK, | |
| 3 | 2024-11-28 10:00 | Pete Owens ♦55 | Also, odd definitions are also used in the UK. OSM uses "Trunk" for primary roads and "Primary" for bog standard A roads. In the official road hierarchy "Trunk" is applied to the the strategic highway network managed nationally - and does mot include this road. | |
| 4 | 2024-11-28 11:26 | SomeoneElse | Ah, I didn't realise that iD suggested different tagging for trunk and primary (although historically people have misinterpreted iD's "Not Specified" as "I need to set a value here").The UK tagging of "green=trunk; white=primary" is widely accepted (see the ... | |
| 159639409 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-11-27 01:24 | 1 | 2024-11-27 01:32 | SomeoneElse | Also a kitchen shop on Blossom Street |
| 159638835 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-11-27 00:28 | 1 | 2024-11-27 01:18 | SomeoneElse | The Esri imagery currently shows construction ongoing, but construction is basically complete. Despite that, it's still useful for locating features. The rest has been drawn by eye from roads and paths. More needs doing, especially when the basins are full (it'll only be possible to see... |
| 159611522 by GBAB @ 2024-11-26 11:28 | 1 | 2024-11-26 12:45 | ZeLonewolf ♦559 | I think this was intended for OpenHistoricalMap. |
| 2 | 2024-11-26 13:50 | SomeoneElse | @GBAB - I suspect your changes to the Irish ones here was an accident! You might want to either change it back or liaise with the people who added that data to make sure that they are OK with the new tags. | |
| 3 | 2024-11-26 20:05 | GBAB ♦100 | Dear All,yes, I just changed the Hungarian 'boundary=police_district' tags to simple 'boundary=police' because it seemed that they were the only =police_district values on the wide OSM while =police values exist also in other parts of the world.Now I have retagged them:... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-26 20:08 | GBAB ♦100 | …however, OSM is meant rather for current objects that do exist even nowadays and less for historic data. If we mapped everything that used to exist once upon a time that would result quite a complex OpenStreetMap… | |
| 5 | 2024-11-26 20:15 | SomeoneElse | Indeed - part of that discussion is happening at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-this-mapping-historic-features/122139/7 | |
| 159375160 by Andy James 93 @ 2024-11-20 16:57 | 1 | 2024-11-25 10:51 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I wonder if you can help. The relations https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9242266#map=16/51.23216/-2.32587 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/192467#map=15/51.22876/-2.32977 seem to be used for different parts of the same cycleway link in Frome - I'm guessing that it'... |
| 2 | 2024-11-25 21:14 | Andy James 93 ♦2 | Hi Andy, are you referring to the very small length of this at Nunney Road and Selwood Road? If so, then no, you are correct. Andy | |
| 3 | 2024-11-25 21:58 | SomeoneElse | OK - now done - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/192467#map=14/51.23258/-2.33116 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9242266#map=15/51.23172/-2.32174 . Does that look OK now? | |
| 4 | 2024-11-25 22:02 | Andy James 93 ♦2 | That does yes, thanks! | |
| 159497413 by mapeing @ 2024-11-23 12:27 | 1 | 2024-11-24 12:05 | SomeoneElse | Hello,We don't generally add the name of relations that something is part of to the something itself, so for example here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1315609958/history would only be called that if that was the name of this stretch of path on the ground.Different maps show different t... |
| 158556368 by RedSkies @ 2024-10-30 19:24 | 1 | 2024-11-23 15:33 | SomeoneElse | Hello again RedSkies,Why did you delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328973938/history here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 157854719 by LockOnGuy @ 2024-10-13 23:21 | 1 | 2024-11-21 10:01 | SomeoneElse | Hello again LockOnGuy,You've used "updated name " as a changeset comment here. This isn't good enough - you should explain what source you used and what changes were actually made to names.In addition, someone has provided the DWG with https://ibb.co/kydcgQH , which claims t... |
| 2 | 2024-11-21 10:27 | LockOnGuy ♦772 | Hello, SomeoneElse, Have you seen the history? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332658571/history It was initially added with an Arabic name, but in changeset 127308649, it was changed, and the changeset comment was only "set of edits." I don't see your comment there ask... | |
| 3 | 2024-11-21 10:32 | SomeoneElse | @LockOnGuy Can you provide evidence of current external mainly-Arab signage? It is you who is "wasting the DWG's time" with "a nameplate on [the current mayor's] desk written exclusively in Arabic". | |
| 4 | 2024-11-21 10:36 | LockOnGuy ♦772 | As I stated, eye survey. And the nameplate can be found online, see: https://i.ibb.co/XkrZQZB/image.png | |
| 5 | 2024-11-21 10:50 | SomeoneElse | I've reverted it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332658571 . If you can find evidence of actual signage being change, please provide it. Until then, please do not waste the DWG's time. | |
| 6 | 2024-11-21 10:53 | LockOnGuy ♦772 | What was your source for this change? My source was eye survey. Also, see the message I sent on you on OSM now. Regards. | |
| 7 | 2024-11-21 11:19 | SomeoneElse | Source was the picture I linked in the first comment above. You were asked to comment on it but instead talked about the current mayor's desk. | |
| 8 | 2024-11-21 11:21 | SomeoneElse | Please do not try and communicate with the DWG via private messages to individual members. If you want to reply to a ticket, reply to an email or message associated with that ticket. If you want to comment publicly on a changeset, do that.If you want to comment somewhere that everyone in the c... | |
| 9 | 2024-11-22 22:51 | LockOnGuy ♦772 | >Source was the picture I linked in the first comment above.But the name on the sign does not match the one you put in 'name'And you also changed the Arabic name which was also correct before. In top of that, the name you used is not clear and might give confusions, as y... | |
| 10 | 2024-11-22 23:32 | SomeoneElse | If you have more up-to-date pictures please discuss on the forum. Something at https://community.openstreetmap.org/tags/c/help-and-support/7/all/iraq would be a good place to start. | |
| 11 | 2024-11-23 00:17 | LockOnGuy ♦772 | This doesn't address the issues I mentioned at the comment above. The picture you used as "source" do not match the name you put. You did not notice this? | |
| 12 | 2024-11-23 00:21 | LockOnGuy ♦772 | And a simple online search showing the picture is over 3 years old https://www.gulanmedia.com/ar/story/267083/ | |
| 13 | 2024-11-23 00:28 | SomeoneElse | If you have more up-to-date pictures please discuss on the forum. Something at https://community.openstreetmap.org/tags/c/help-and-support/7/all/iraq would be a good place to start.You have consistently shown bias towards your preferred language and political affiliation in Iraq. Other contribu... | |
| 14 | 2024-11-23 00:32 | SomeoneElse | s/is evidence/is why evidence/ | |
| 15 | 2024-11-23 00:58 | LockOnGuy ♦772 | Andy, Firstly, I had no interest or bias at all about having a specific language over the other. And also just for your information, Arabic is not my mother language, or the language we speak at home, and unfortunately, I find it really absurd that I have to share such personal information to ... | |
| 159430998 by mapeing @ 2024-11-21 19:11 | 1 | 2024-11-21 23:47 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | Please stop tagging mapping for the renderer. Reverted in 159430998 |
| 2 | 2024-11-21 23:50 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | Sorry, reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159439095If there is no physical separation between carriageways, don't add a fictitious separation on the map because you think it looks nicer.Mini roundabouts are NOT roundabouts, do not map them as if they were. Different rul... | |
| 3 | 2024-11-22 00:11 | SomeoneElse | I have to say, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29027798/history does look like a mini-roundabout rather than an actual roundabout on the imagery (unless that's out of date, of course).Perhaps this would have been a good candidate for asking about at the forum https://community.openstreetma... | |
| 158037856 by desertivy @ 2024-10-18 07:37 Active block | 1 | 2024-11-18 20:39 | SomeoneElse | Please can you explain, on the forum c.osm.org , why you think that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11629870960/history should be deleted. In https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16885 you have just now been warned about this sort of "tit for tat" deletion - if you believe that ... |
| 2 | 2024-11-18 21:11 | desertivy Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2024-11-18 21:36 | SomeoneElse | > then I believe nothing will convince you.To be clear - there is a lot of information in that private message to the DWG. Unfortunately, that tells us only what we know already - that one side of a name dispute has one view about what things should be called.I know of plenty of places (... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-19 12:28 | desertivy Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 5 | 2024-11-19 12:44 | SomeoneElse | @desertivy - I am trying to help you here. You can ignore my suggestions and carry on as before, but as you've seen that isn't working out so well.The top-down model that you are suggesting simply won't work for OSM. I agree that right now there is no functioning OSM community i... | |
| 6 | 2024-11-19 15:30 | desertivy Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 159138489 by DodoTheDev @ 2024-11-14 16:52 | 1 | 2024-11-16 08:03 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, I've removed duplicated sections of highways at the bridges. Also amended to way to be one with the old railway.Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | 2024-11-19 10:45 | SomeoneElse | @DodoTheDev Thanks for tidying this up. I've removed a bit more of the duplication to the west and also joined up a gap there - http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=151858&noCache=true&_noCache=on | |
| 3 | 2024-11-19 10:46 | SomeoneElse | Actually - one more question - does the cycleway really join the top of the bridge at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9396732243 ? | |
| 158436132 by maro21 @ 2024-10-28 00:58 | 1 | 2024-10-28 19:43 | grzegorzmilosz ♦29 | Nie dość że krzywo to jeszcze nie poprawnie bo drogi polne nie są polem uprawnym. A po za tym po co takie wielkie bloki pól uprawnych drogi powinny dzielić pola uprawne na mniejsze fragmenty. |
| 2 | 2024-10-28 20:14 | Marek-M ♦905 | @maro21 - co było powodem wycofania edycji? Może jakieś szczegóły były do poprawy ale chyba cofnięcie całego changesetu było na wyrost? | |
| 3 | 2024-11-17 20:55 | SomeoneElse | @maro21 - please do reply to the questions that you have been asked here. | |
| 4 | 2024-11-17 20:55 | SomeoneElse | @maro21 - proszę odpowiedz na pytania, które Ci tutaj zadano. | |
| 5 | 2024-11-27 00:03 | maro21 ♦712 | grzegorzmilosz: Drogi polne poprawiłem. Co znaczy zdanie "drogi polne nie są polem uprawnym"? No nie są, wiadomo.Drogi mogą, ale nie muszą dzielić pól uprawnych. Droga polna, jak sama nazwa wskazuje, jest na polu. Co innego jezdnia.MarekM: Bo 90% zestawu było błędne. ... | |
| 158749324 by RedSkies @ 2024-11-04 17:05 | 1 | 2024-11-15 19:14 | SomeoneElse | You appear to be involved in an editor war over https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1135361639/history . Don't do that. |
| 2 | 2024-11-16 11:51 | SomeoneElse | Looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1135361639 , I'm struggling to see any evidence on current imagery. Do you have any suggestions of better imagery (or as suggested before, on the ground photos)? | |
| 158749248 by CurlingMan13 @ 2024-11-04 17:03 | 1 | 2024-11-04 17:05 | RedSkies ♦14 | User has been told to stop modifying abandoned railways by moderators and refuses to listenhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158749324 |
| 2 | 2024-11-15 19:14 | SomeoneElse | You appear to be involved in an editor war over https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1135361639/history . Don't do that. | |
| 157926370 by ^_^ @ 2024-10-15 15:26 | 1 | 2024-10-15 18:54 | silversurfer83 ♦3,407 | Hi there :)It's nice of you to "clean up". But do you knwo what could help reduce the need for future clean up work? Talking to people!Have a look at the changeset that created the possibly wrong name tags: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157794072As you can see it... |
| 2 | 2024-11-15 12:22 | SomeoneElse | @silversurfer83 There may be a number of reasons why someone might not want to contact a brand new user. Their first language might not be the same as the new mapper, and they know that there are other local mappers in the area, or maybe they just want to let the local mapper "get the hang of ... | |
| 3 | 2024-11-15 13:38 | silversurfer83 ♦3,407 | Dear Andy,you speak truth.Yet I'd like to give some context to my comment above:https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16811https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=14399887there has been quite an exchange of (warm) words (of welcome) as I try to be civ... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-15 13:49 | SomeoneElse | Yes, I was aware of https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16811 . Unlike my DWG colleague, I had thought that the now-removed profile text was something of a joke and a statement about "individual mapper empowerment" :)Some edits perhaps do deserve discussion - I suspect that a chat... | |
| 159112192 by TheUltimateKoopa @ 2024-11-14 01:11 | 1 | 2024-11-15 01:46 | SomeoneElse | Hello,The changeset comment here suggests that you might be having a bit of an issue with bus relations not showing up (somewhere?) and "Fuck this fucking shit. I'm going to fucking delete all the fucking bus routes on this fucking site!!!!" elsewhere suggests a certain amount of ... |
| 158971153 by computerfan0 @ 2024-11-10 15:04 | 1 | 2024-11-12 14:24 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've no idea what "osm-relatify git#91d26e5" is, but this changeset duplicated a whole bunch of ways around https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1332627943 .Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-11-12 15:46 | SomeoneElse | See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-is-osm-relatify-and-is-there-a-problem-with-it/121526 . | |
| 158599665 by Canalsman @ 2024-10-31 22:06 | 1 | 2024-11-11 14:37 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Actually, the "waterway=derelict_canal" would be on the "formerly wet bit" and the "bridge=aqueduct" would be on the whole area.There is already a linear waterway=canal through here which you can see at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#19/52.7370... |
| 2 | 2024-11-11 21:51 | Canalsman ♦4 | Thanks Andy.I've made some changes along the lines you suggest.Thoughts?RegardsChris | |
| 3 | 2024-11-12 12:11 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - that looks more like it. | |
| 158698297 by Adam Edwards @ 2024-11-03 13:05 | 1 | 2024-11-05 13:40 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm assuming here that the NCN2 bypasses the roundabout - that's what I've done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13725970#map=19/50.708432/-2.422838 , hope this is OK.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-11-08 11:20 | Adam Edwards ♦13 | You can see the NCN2 signs here clearly showing that the cycle route is off road and going around the roundabout on the shared use footway to the south and then west. https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=50.708338%7E-2.422797&lvl=17.9&pi=-17.5&style=x&dir=87.6https://www.bing.com/maps/?... | |
| 3 | 2024-11-08 14:49 | SomeoneElse | Great - thanks! | |
| 158716439 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2024-11-03 20:38 | 1 | 2024-11-04 00:50 | ◪ Jarv ♦240 | yeah sorry |
| 2 | 2024-11-04 00:53 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 94158736 by skifans @ 2020-11-15 18:05 | 1 | 2024-11-01 23:06 | SomeoneElse | Just wondered - is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8121495253 really "Sental" or perhaps "Sentinel"? |
| 2 | 2024-11-01 23:13 | skifans ♦37 | Ops yes - thanks! I'll sort it. | |
| 158021189 by jasonmiller2008 @ 2024-10-17 18:19 Active block | 1 | 2024-10-30 23:17 | SomeoneElse | Hello jasonmiller2008 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!Please use changeset comments that explain a bit more about you're doing - just "update" doesn't really help anyone.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-11-13 21:05 | woodpeck_repair ♦33,903 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 159107632 where the changeset comment is: revert un-trustworthy/fictional golf mapping | |
| 158263211 by I-76 @ 2024-10-23 16:59 | 1 | 2024-10-23 17:07 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,393 | Partly revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158262994Thanks @ I-76 ! |
| 2 | 2024-10-23 17:08 | pitscheplatsch ♦5,393 | Sorry, the following is the correct changeset which has been reverted: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158262569 | |
| 3 | 2024-10-30 22:39 | SomeoneElse | Thanks | |
| 4 | 2024-10-30 22:40 | SomeoneElse | Actually, should the name be "Big Minds Unschooled"? The alt name is already "Big Minds Unschool". | |
| 155622202 by WebRota - TI @ 2024-08-22 18:58 | 1 | 2024-08-28 16:09 | suchAnight ♦39 | Hello Web Rota-TI,While editing in Brazil I have noticed some roads have been upgraded to tertiary highways such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1310651907 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1309874705. According to the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway) tertiary highwa... |
| 2 | 2024-10-29 19:13 | WebRota - TI ♦3 | Hello,Thank you for raising this important point regarding road classification.We understand your concern about roads being classified as highway=tertiary, particularly in rural areas. In our mapping process, we utilize data from private trackers, which provides us with a more precise view o... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-29 20:48 | SomeoneElse | Hello "WebRota - TI",Who is "we"?Best Regards,Andy | |
| 157995894 by Neonkaaaaa @ 2024-10-17 08:00 | 1 | 2024-10-29 18:57 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Please join the discussion in the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/200-hours-of-work-deleted-how-can-i-report-this-deletion-and-revert-it-to-its-original-state/120863 !Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-11-18 00:01 | woodpeck_repair ♦33,903 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 159263484 where the changeset comment is: revert tree deletions in Dubai, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/200-hours-of-work-deleted-how-can-i-report-this-deletion-and-revert-it-to-its-original-state/120863 | |
| 158084744 by kitsee @ 2024-10-19 10:53 | 1 | 2024-10-28 22:26 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Somewhere through the maze around he Heads of the Valleys, there's a signed cycle route, NCN 46: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=173236 . However, as you can see from that it's not been updated since the recent construction. I wonder if you've seen any signag... |
| 2 | 2024-10-28 23:22 | kitsee ♦96 | Hi Andy,I've corrected the small error in bryn bach park. I must have forgot to delete it when moving the cycle path to the footway. I have been keeping an eye on it as part of keeping the A465 updated between hirwaun and merthyr. I didn't notice the issues further east.The Hirwau... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-28 23:59 | SomeoneElse | Great stuff, thanks! | |
| 158381460 by user_1344 @ 2024-10-26 15:27 | 1 | 2024-10-28 22:01 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like a gap had accidentally appeared in the A170 here. I presume that didn't really happen (it'd have been on the news). Presumably the footpaths here have been moved to use the crossing to the east, so the Cleveland Way is now https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4087... |
| 2 | 2024-10-28 22:34 | user_1344 ♦1 | Andy, I can only see the gap in the A170 at a zoom levels 16, 17 & 18, it's there at all others...?!I'm sorry, I didn't note any new signage, I shall have to return to check. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-28 23:14 | SomeoneElse | Hello,The gap's gone now, because I filled it in. Various renderers will catch up at their own speed, and I suspect that OSM's own tile servers are busy because the OSM Carto style has just changed.Cheers,Andy | |
| 158350446 by mapeing @ 2024-10-25 18:38 | 1 | 2024-10-28 21:32 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Do you know how NCN1 is routed here? Currently there is a gap: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13512082#map=19/51.393914/0.562289Best Regards,Andy |
| 158150749 by gcycaas @ 2024-10-21 02:21 | 1 | 2024-10-27 21:11 | SomeoneElse | Hello,How do I know if a railway=funicular is a funicular or not?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-10-27 22:21 | gcycaas ♦3 | According to Wikipedia, if a cable car line has two cars(or two trains) operated as a counterbalanced, interconnected pair, always moving in opposite directions, thus meeting the definition of a funicular. If not, then it's just a cable car, but still applicable to the funicular OSM tag accordi... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-27 23:42 | SomeoneElse | OK - but from looking at OSM data how do I tell the difference between DART here and (say) https://www.centraltramway.co.uk/ ? | |
| 4 | 2024-10-28 00:59 | gcycaas ♦3 | I don't think OSM are that detailed in different type of cable hauled rail line at this time, maybe we can add something like "note=not a funicular but a Doppelmayr Cable Liner Double Shuttle" to DART's data, I think that's all we can do at this point. The funicular tag real... | |
| 146229659 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2024-01-13 22:55 | 1 | 2024-01-13 22:56 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 146035418, 146041261, 146081284, 146082676, 146087172, 146118711, 146119743, 146120885, 146121330, 146197051, 146197688. |
| 2 | 2024-10-24 02:06 | Nate Wessel ♦59 | Why the reversion? At least one of these edits (the one I'm looking at at the moment) was valid and helpful. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-24 10:04 | SomeoneElse | @Nate Wessel the block message has a bit more info. The DWG ticket was Ticket#2023110410000321 and incorporated complaints from 6 mappers from Canada and elsewhere against a number of (suspected related) accounts.As you can see from the block message, we did ask the user to get in touch - they ne... | |
| 158275805 by Blixt99 @ 2024-10-24 00:51 | 1 | 2024-10-24 01:13 | SomeoneElse | Please grow up, the pair of you, and discuss in the forum. |
| 2 | 2024-10-24 16:01 | tekim ♦696 | It seems that Blixt99 may not be familiar with the concept of multipolygons in OSM, or is mapping to fit a particular app, rather than by general OSM practices. | |
| 158275814 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2024-10-24 00:52 | 1 | 2024-10-24 01:12 | SomeoneElse | Please grow up, the pair of you, and discuss in the forum. |
| 2 | 2024-10-24 02:01 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Blixt doesn't respond to any communication.https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=19615950 | |
| 153726539 by c tito young @ 2024-07-09 03:13 | 1 | 2024-07-09 12:54 | SomeoneElse | As noted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/c%20tito%20young/diary/404518#comment57540 , the "shapes" here seem to be entirely fictional. Perhaps some other project may be a better outlet for this drawing (uMap, maybe)? |
| 2 | 2024-10-20 21:46 | Rodrigo Rega ♦338 | Opened note about this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4349485 | |
| 3 | 2024-10-20 23:13 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've created a forum topic at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/geoglyphs-added-in-nazca-peru/120420 - it'd be great to see people's comments there too.Best Regards,Andy | |
| 158085903 by jSeke @ 2024-10-19 11:25 | 1 | 2024-10-19 12:18 | SomeoneElse | Hello,If it was me, and I was changing the name of something like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5360429276 from one language to another, I'd actually add the other language (here name:gd) as an explicit name tag too so that people understand which languages are involved (although not eve... |
| 2 | 2024-10-19 12:59 | jSeke ♦11 | that is entirely my bad, I don't know how I remembered to do that for the name of the Island and mistagged it for the name of the volcano | |
| 157029789 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2024-09-24 09:13 | 1 | 2024-10-12 14:28 | SomeoneElse | This is just a revert with no comment. Can you explain why the previous version was wrong and your version is correct?In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157023417 they explained that that bit of grass that you can see around the green isn't part of the fairway.Best Regards,Andy T... |
| 2 | 2024-10-12 22:47 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Apologies for changeset non comment.I had replied to the private message directly and posted their message in the changeset discussion.Satellite clearly shows the fairway cut surrounding the green. The "photo" referenced in the changeset comment is a diagram. Blixt has a histo... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-12 23:18 | SomeoneElse | I understand the frustration with the Golf software's inability to handle multipolygons, (and at people pretending that everything is a simple area instead), but that doesn't mean that _every_ fairway has to be a multipolygon, surely? | |
| 4 | 2024-10-13 08:26 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Sure, its possible.However Blixt has just been trying different things to see what sticks and I have no confidence that anything they claim is in good faith. I expect any allowed inaccurate mapping will get relayed back to tgc forums and gets propagated elsewhere. https://tgctours.proboards.com/po... | |
| 155703934 by Marcin Gliński @ 2024-08-24 16:06 | 1 | 2024-08-28 17:00 | JacekMarek ♦12 | Dzień Dobry,Zestaw zmian przywraca błędne dane. Drogi te to teren Kampinoskiego Parku Narodowego, zakaz poruszania się poza szlakami (Ustawa o ochronie przyrody. Dz.U.2023.0.1336, Art. 15. ochr. przyr. pkt 1 podpunkt 15).Proszę cofnąć psujące mapę zmiany, w innym wypadku będę mu... |
| 2 | 2024-08-29 12:35 | Marcin Gliński ♦2 | Dzień dobry, Zakaz dotyczy jedynie ruchu turystycznego. Nie dotyczy służb, podwykonawców, badaczy itp, którzy mają zgodę władz parku do poruszania się poza szlakami. Proszę cofnąć, lub zmienić psujące mapę zmiany, w innym wypadku będę musiał zgłosić to jako wa... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-12 12:11 | SomeoneElse | Hello Marcin,It sounds, from this conversation and from others, that "private" would actually be the correct tagging here.If you believe this to be incorrect I would suggest that you discuss it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pl/40 .Best Regards,Andy Townsend... | |
| 4 | 2024-10-12 12:12 | SomeoneElse | Cześć Marcin,Wygląda na to, że z tej rozmowy i innych wynika, że „prywatne” byłoby tutaj właściwym tagowaniem.Jeśli uważasz, że to nieprawda, sugeruję, abyś omówił to na stronie https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pl/40.Pozdrawiam,Andy T... | |
| 5 | 2024-10-12 15:53 | Marcin Gliński ♦2 | Access = "Private" is ok for me, according to the definition given in here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:accessHowever confusing by the name itself. I will change it. Thnx | |
| 6 | 2024-10-12 16:43 | JacekMarek ♦12 | the private tag is a mistake - firstly because it is misleading, secondly because it allows a specific group to gain access. Meanwhile, these are areas without access, and people who gain access in exceptional situations know the area without a map. It is better to hold off on editing until a standa... | |
| 7 | 2024-10-12 16:51 | SomeoneElse | @JacekMarek you say that "the private tag is a mistake" but then "these are areas without access". I'm confused - the from the discussion above, "private" sounds correct to me, and (as I write this) it hasn't been set yet: https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/40... | |
| 8 | 2024-10-12 19:35 | JacekMarek ♦12 | @someoneelse Okay, let's break it down. The restriction on entry to this area results directly from the Nature Conservation Act, specifically from Article 15, point 15 (link: https://sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/dzu-dziennik-ustaw/ochrona-przyrody-17091515/art-15 ).The National Park Directorate h... | |
| 157594622 by Colin Smale @ 2024-10-07 18:32 | 1 | 2024-10-08 12:52 | SomeoneElse | Presumably when work is complete it'll also fix the gap in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9310601 :) |
| 2 | 2024-10-08 19:52 | Colin Smale ♦319 | Yes, all fixed now. Thanks for the pointer. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-09 16:22 | SomeoneElse | Thanks - it reappeared in my database afterwards too. | |
| 157494945 by Thingummy @ 2024-10-05 10:57 | 1 | 2024-10-08 12:49 | SomeoneElse | Hello - a quick question about https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16788800#map=18/52.332694/-0.135961 - It looks like there are three possible routes there, but I guess you know which one is correct :) |
| 2 | 2024-10-09 08:22 | Thingummy ♦11 | Thanks, messed up the path relation. Now fixed so this bit of Ouse Valley Way is on public footpath (except where official right of way goes through water) | |
| 3 | 2024-10-09 16:19 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 155915831 by Welshie @ 2024-08-29 08:32 | 1 | 2024-10-09 11:58 | SomeoneElse | Like https://osm.org/changeset/118501311 et al, surely this is Gunnerside not Grosmont? We know there's an obviously wrong Yorkshire Water spreadsheet out there (see several previous on https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments.php?uid=508 ), so I think we all have to check any n... |
| 157426770 by Metzor @ 2024-10-03 16:12 | 1 | 2024-10-07 10:20 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 157449350 by shalini-whiz @ 2024-10-04 08:21 | 1 | 2024-10-06 20:20 | whb_revert ♦18 | Reverted:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157556433 |
| 2 | 2024-10-07 10:10 | SomeoneElse | See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/error-document-not-well-formed-while-trying-to-upload-osm-file-into-osm-server-via-https-api-openstreetmap-org-api-0-6-changeset-2345678-upload/119764/2 | |
| 157556612 by whb_revert @ 2024-10-06 20:13 | 1 | 2024-10-06 21:14 | NeisBot ♦2,300 | Hi whb_revert, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:No primary map features!?Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurr... |
| 2 | 2024-10-07 10:09 | SomeoneElse | See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/error-document-not-well-formed-while-trying-to-upload-osm-file-into-osm-server-via-https-api-openstreetmap-org-api-0-6-changeset-2345678-upload/119764/3 | |
| 157556433 by whb_revert @ 2024-10-06 20:07 | 1 | 2024-10-06 21:14 | NeisBot ♦2,300 | Hi whb_revert, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:No primary map features!?Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurr... |
| 2 | 2024-10-06 22:43 | SomeoneElse | :)https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/error-document-not-well-formed-while-trying-to-upload-osm-file-into-osm-server-via-https-api-openstreetmap-org-api-0-6-changeset-2345678-upload/119764/3 | |
| 151567251 by Aleksandar Matejevic @ 2024-05-20 08:47 | 1 | 2024-10-03 19:38 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for reverting https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/151566709 , but it looks like the person who did that also changed the names in https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/150898937 . Using https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/13407035 I've tried to set the names back... |
| 156807539 by David Osipov @ 2024-09-19 08:23 | 1 | 2024-09-19 18:53 | ivanbranco ♦2,698 | I David,https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12185682258/historyI wonder where you found all these names in other languages, e.g. the italian one? Or the various descriptions of the nearby church in various languages? |
| 2 | 2024-09-19 19:25 | David Osipov ♦9 | Hi! The process is a bit complex - I find every possible info about a POI in Georgian, English and Russian - supply AI with this information and ask it generate names and description tags. Of course refinement takes place. I do it to improve accessibility for tourists, who don't know Georgian o... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-29 20:30 | SomeoneElse | Please don't add AI generated slop to the OSM database.If someone wants to see that, they can perform the same mechanical process that you did. | |
| 4 | 2024-09-30 12:09 | David Osipov ♦9 | I've created a big post on AI usage concerns. Please, feel free to comment there: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/ai-assisted-tagging-in-openstreetmap-a-case-for-responsible-innovation-and-copyright-compliance/119461 | |
| 5 | 2024-09-30 12:12 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for raising it on the forum! | |
| 151567498 by mueschel @ 2024-05-20 08:52 | 1 | 2024-09-22 18:46 | SomeoneElse | "bar_billiards" is a completely different game to billiards. |
| 2 | 2024-09-29 22:49 | SomeoneElse | For info, this is what a bar billiards table looks like: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/241539.jpg . That's not one of these but the one in https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/559267374/ . | |
| 157179684 by AdrianLangtry @ 2024-09-27 16:28 | 1 | 2024-09-28 20:45 | SomeoneElse | Oops - I'm guessing a name of "D" for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3266778 is an accident?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-09-28 20:59 | AdrianLangtry ♦15 | Oops is right, I intended to deselect instead | |
| 157060765 by LOHS Dragons @ 2024-09-25 01:09 | 1 | 2024-09-25 01:12 | NeisBot ♦2,300 | Hi LOHS Dragons, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:No primary map features!?Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occu... |
| 2 | 2024-09-25 12:42 | LOHS Dragons ♦1 | Hello NeisBot!I am the trail coordinator for the trail in question. The old trail information is causing us issues when using strava. I am working to clean up the system. I have a new path to upload which is the new official trail and the one that we are maintaining. Is there a tutorial on upl... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-27 16:06 | SomeoneElse | Hi LOHS Dragons,If a trail is no longer in use, I'd suggest changing the tag on each section from "highway=path" to something like "disused:highway=path" is better than deleting it. The reason for that is that if someone sees nothing at all there when editing OSM, they ... | |
| 157168143 by marcrammyrbusa_monarchy @ 2024-09-27 12:12 | 1 | 2024-09-27 15:53 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!I'm not sure what adjustment was made here - it seems to be a small adjustment to building geometry. One thing that it might be useful to know is that if the underlying building is rectangular (as appears to be the case here) then you can "square up&... |
| 157163259 by ngumenawesamson @ 2024-09-27 10:04 | 1 | 2024-09-27 15:30 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You may wish to read and comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/UNGSC-DTLM-Ale_Zena/diary/405186 .Best Regards,Andy |
| 133145225 by twospeed @ 2023-02-28 20:26 | 1 | 2024-09-27 10:16 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I know this was a year ago, but I'm just wondering what prompted the addition of "access=no" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/852181100/history#map=18/53.749696/-2.056549 ? It was already tagged as "motor_vehicle=private" and various other transport modes as &qu... |
| 2 | 2024-09-27 14:19 | twospeed ♦4 | Not sure why I did that! | |
| 120872718 by LakatosVL @ 2022-05-12 07:33 | 1 | 2024-09-27 10:13 | SomeoneElse | For clarity, the only change here was to add a layer=1 tag to the bridge https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91855831/history . |
| 157080435 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-09-25 12:35 | 1 | 2024-09-25 12:36 | SomeoneElse | There may be more signage (worth going back to have a look) beyond "no access to allotments". Also several different surfaces here, so splitting would make sense. |
| 156447366 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2024-09-10 15:58 | 1 | 2024-09-25 12:15 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'd suggest explaining to everyone at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/its-time-to-address-the-a8-m/117468 the reasoning behind this change.Best Regards,Andy |
| 152796345 by aleksaJov @ 2024-06-17 10:42 | 1 | 2024-09-23 11:16 | SomeoneElse | Per https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/11 , could you please explain what you changed here and why? |
| 2 | 2024-09-24 08:13 | aleksaJov ♦49 | Hello Andy,According to Bing aerial imagery, Mapillary and a state of this way (w399443425), I was reclassify road segment from track to service because the higher road classification "service" persist inside this road network (w502064102,w954234146). Also, added barrier=gate tag whic... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-24 10:41 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 152790835 by aleksaJov @ 2024-06-17 08:32 | 1 | 2024-09-23 11:17 | SomeoneElse | Per https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/11 , could you please explain what you changed here and why? |
| 2 | 2024-09-24 08:24 | aleksaJov ♦49 | Hello Andy,According to Bing aerial imagery, OS OpenMap Local (October 2022) and a state of this way (w284473684) which connect to Trawlers Farmhouse service road, I was reclassify road segment from track to service because the higher road classification "service" persist inside this ... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-24 10:40 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 152948369 by Misa_zumba @ 2024-06-20 14:18 | 1 | 2024-09-21 23:14 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I don't think that there is anything that suggests that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/812960030/history is part of the public road network, is there? OS OpenData suggests not (just look at that layer in an editor) and the rights of way data suggests that the whole thing is actually ... |
| 2 | 2024-09-23 07:15 | Misa_zumba ♦40 | Hi SomeoneElse,I changed the road classification from 'track' to 'service' because the road passes by two houses, and it has been suggested that the 'track' tag should not be used for access to permanent human settlements or structures, as mentioned here: https://wiki... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-23 10:43 | SomeoneElse | Someone at Microsoft has said (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/4 ) that they'll review these edits for errors - I hope they are doing that.With a DWG hat on I don't think I'm going to be reviewing all 2714 or... | |
| 4 | 2024-09-23 10:52 | SomeoneElse | The wiki statement "Roads used for access to permanent human settlements or facilities should generally not use this tag" is on one level utter rubbish (because, as here, there's very often a mix of access to both fields _and_ the people who live in or near them) and also understandab... | |
| 5 | 2024-09-23 10:55 | SomeoneElse | Also, the whole public bridleway is also definitely bicycle=yes (there's a legal right to cycle along bridleways in England and Wales) - but I appreciate that you didn't add that tag here. | |
| 156818308 by Layft Greater @ 2024-09-19 12:35 | 1 | 2024-09-21 01:30 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Incorrect location.If you're adding new stuff not on imagery please get a gpx trace and/or street-level imagery. --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156818308 |
| 2 | 2024-09-21 07:32 | Layft Greater ♦170 | Spaghetti Monster,I would like to point two topics here:1. The location of the intersection was mapped not here but in changeset #156722732.This edit changes the junction type from "construction" to "completed" after survey. Unfortunately, street-level imagery is not po... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-21 07:45 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | upload a gpx trace https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Upload_GPS_tracks#Applications_supporting_direct_upload_of_GPS_traces and map it at the correct location. I will not add bad data back into the map. | |
| 4 | 2024-09-21 11:55 | Layft Greater ♦170 | One person has surveyed and mapped the junction construction. Another one has serveyed and mapped the construction completed.Survey by the two independent people is enough evidence.I guess I have to escalate this situation | |
| 5 | 2024-09-21 20:08 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | You're free to add it at the correct location | |
| 6 | 2024-09-22 13:29 | Afrandez ♦8 | someone tell me which one is foolish; to demand a gps track from INSIDE of a military area that you can't go on foot, or prioritizing year old(read:outdated) imageries over live observations from site. | |
| 7 | 2024-09-22 16:21 | SomeoneElse | @Spaghetti%20Monster%F0%9F%8D%9D - have you ever been to this area of Cyprus? | |
| 8 | 2024-09-22 20:48 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | gps trace is possible if its possible to survey.Copernicus imagery shows that its not close to the mapped location while not being clear enough to map it accurately. | |
| 9 | 2024-09-22 21:10 | SomeoneElse | @Spaghetti%20Monster%F0%9F%8D%9D You haven't answered the question :) | |
| 10 | 2024-09-22 23:55 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | No | |
| 11 | 2024-09-23 08:51 | Afrandez ♦8 | Thought so. Although I don't have any obligation to prove my point, I dug into the app I'm using to record stuff on site and turns out, the app has recorded traces every time it was open on phone, and better yet, there is one for this area.https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Afrandez/tr... | |
| 12 | 2024-09-23 09:14 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | I have no issue with the road being mapped at the correct location. The issue was with the inaccuracy especially with the connecting roads added by Layft which were in a considerably wrong heading based only on ditches in the outdated imagery. Does Go Map allow notes and/or photos attached to ... | |
| 13 | 2024-09-23 09:28 | Afrandez ♦8 | I am not much familiar either, I found this app merely a week ago out of randomness and I don't see any option about adding or taking images or notes from app side. | |
| 14 | 2024-09-23 09:35 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | I added the roundabout at the correct location and a rough layout of the connecting roads using your trace and Copernicus Sentinel-2 L2A imagery from 9-19.Please add details from you surveys as needed. | |
| 15 | 2024-09-23 09:45 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Mapillary allows for manual image capture and upload in their mobile app or you can upload any photos with the desktop uploader.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapillary | |
| 16 | 2024-09-23 09:46 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | If you're out there again it would be very appreciated if possible. | |
| 17 | 2024-09-23 09:51 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Only if its not dangerous or getting you in trouble of course. | |
| 150363062 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2024-04-22 19:31 | 1 | 2024-04-22 21:56 | DorneyLake123 ♦25 | Hi SomeoneElse, I believe this was me. Could you help me understand what the issue was and if there's a way to prevent this happening again, while still using iD / browser ? |
| 2 | 2024-09-18 10:56 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Sorry for not spotting this comment for 5 months!There are a number of "iD relation" issues, some of which you can see at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+relation .What happened here was basically due to https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issu... | |
| 138747785 by Paul Berry @ 2023-07-20 06:56 | 1 | 2024-09-15 11:04 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm not convinced that High Bentham (misspelt here as "Hgh Bentham") is a suburb of Lancaster! It's a very long way away and in a different county.Wars have started for less :)Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-09-15 15:45 | Paul Berry ♦124 | Hi Andy,The post town (addr:city in the UK addressing schema) is Lancaster, despite the cross-border contention (examples exist throughout the UK).https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom explains more.I've nudged addr:suburb to addr:village and corrected ... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-16 20:11 | SomeoneElse | Thanks Paul,"addr:village" makes much more sense to me.As for post town tagging, maybe it needs a run across the mailing list or even a poll on the forum. The last round brought forth gems like https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-January/022424.html and https://list... | |
| 4 | 2024-09-16 20:44 | Paul Berry ♦124 | Hi Andy,Thanks for the pointers. Clicking through the last thread there revealed a reply I made five years back!My position is that it only makes sense to add address data that cannot be derived from other means or just by looking at the map (typically house name and/or number, post town, po... | |
| 156701645 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-09-16 18:58 | 1 | 2024-09-16 18:59 | SomeoneElse | Oops - wrong account - should have been https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse2 |
| 156641795 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-09-15 10:45 | 1 | 2024-09-15 20:57 | SomeoneElse | This changeset is massive only because the gas pipeline https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196268956 is very long! |
| 114593860 by MinerMax555 @ 2021-12-05 20:24 | 1 | 2024-09-15 10:15 | SomeoneElse | From the canal, this just looks like residential gardens.Do you have a link to the "OS Open Greenspace" imagery that suggested otherwise? |
| 73694919 by DLMatthews @ 2019-08-24 12:04 | 1 | 2024-09-14 20:12 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What you've called the Doncaster Bypass here is not signed as that.In my recollection (driving it for 40 years or so) it never has been.Best Regards,Andy |
| 142890224 by thx811 @ 2023-10-20 19:49 | 1 | 2024-09-12 11:01 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What's the source of the name "Army Medical Services Training Centre (Towthorpe Lines)"?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-09-12 18:26 | thx811 ♦7 | Hi AndyMost sources refer to it as one name or the other, rather than both.There is a press article which does refer to both names as being one place (https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14124614.military-medics-front-line-battle-ebola-honoured/)There's a few MOD documents that ref... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-13 09:30 | SomeoneElse | X is inaccessible to anyone and the two press articles will just be regurgitating press releases from the MOD, which leaves a couple of recent (post 2009) documents from them. Even https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63ca9693d3bf7f24b35c0f32/FOI2022-09171.pdf , despite looking like somet... | |
| 156559810 by kvaziq @ 2024-09-13 08:01 | 1 | 2024-09-13 09:01 | SomeoneElse | Hello kvaziq, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!You've added https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12174392649 here, but that seems to be within another school - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174136303 .Maybe they are the same one?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-09-13 09:09 | kvaziq ♦1 | Hi, they are two different schools in the same building. It can be seen on this image https://maps.app.goo.gl/sGzLHBrSzyCM6tAp7Best regards, kvaziq | |
| 139384804 by Richard @ 2023-08-03 09:54 | 1 | 2024-09-11 14:17 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Any idea if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1194235503/history is correct as it stands now? One of Rupert's mappers chopped it off at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/254068820 which created a gap in the AONB outer, which someone else later filled in, but originally that way was al... |
| 155205011 by CAI Salò @ 2024-08-13 16:48 | 1 | 2024-08-20 11:25 | Hungerburg ♦410 | There is talk on this on the forum, https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/117644 - maybe you want to join? |
| 2 | 2024-08-21 09:00 | CAI Salò ♦38 | good morning,the question is much simpler than it may be. Path 30 is used by expert mountaineers, and was opened to connect Val Adamè with Passo Val di Fumo. The project was carried out by volunteers with the help of the Lissone refuge manager. The trail is indicative (like most mountaineer... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-21 09:34 | Superfebs ♦2 | This route is not in the list of the official CAI paths - the land registry, or "catasto dei sentieri CAI".https://15.app.webmapp.it/#/map | |
| 4 | 2024-08-21 21:38 | Hungerburg ♦410 | Perhaps CAI Salò should document in his/her/their personal account profile whether he/she/they are officially appointed to map on the behalves of CAI. Otherwise, all of this is just personal opinion of some unnamed person hiding behind an avatar. | |
| 5 | 2024-08-22 07:15 | Superfebs ♦2 | Even if they do are appointed to map on the behalves of CAI, this very one route isn't belonging to the list of CAI routes, so for this very route that wouldn't matter much. It would still a CAI account, mapping any public and non-CAI pathway. | |
| 6 | 2024-08-25 23:05 | Hungerburg ♦410 | Dear CAI Salò, final words spoken, still one question of mine allowed? Would you please elaborate on what you mean when you say "In fact, the trail is left in gray"? Looking at the standard view, it is shown much like a 2m wide footway in a park in Trento e.g. So, not grey at all. | |
| 7 | 2024-08-31 21:39 | Hungerburg ♦410 | Hmm, no reply for a week. Yet, this is of substantial interest. Openstreetmap is not a paint book where ways are given colours by the mappers. Instead, mappers map what is there on the ground (a.k.a. trampling).I guess I will have to change the tagging of the way from highway=path;path=route int... | |
| 8 | 2024-09-02 12:27 | SomeoneElse | @CAI Salò> No further communications will follow. Thank you. CAI Salò.OpenStreetMap is a shared project, and we have to work together to create the best map. You (as a member of an organisation) don't get a veto on that - other members of that organisation may disagree... | |
| 9 | 2024-09-09 12:54 | SomeoneElse | @CAI Salò Please do join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/alpinist-routes-marked-as-footpaths/117644 . If you don't, people won't have heard your point of view, and any decision reached won't take it into consideration. | |
| 10 | 2024-09-09 12:55 | SomeoneElse | @CAI Salò Per favore, unisciti alla discussione su https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/alpinist-routes-marked-as-footpaths/117644 . Se non lo fai, le persone non avranno ascoltato il tuo punto di vista e qualsiasi decisione presa non lo prenderà in considerazione. | |
| 11 | 2024-09-10 18:00 | Hungerburg ♦410 | I guess I know now what is meant with red/gray -- https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15.0/46.1351/10.558 -- help there also has a section on Italy. | |
| 12 | 2024-11-03 23:16 | Road–Runner ♦221 | So this is the Bochetta de Levade saddle and the key spot, right? https://youtu.be/I3pQbankkXA?si=4cshma0CWV54qbdV&t=581 And this the gully up to the saddle: https://youtu.be/3qObgHMSdAk?si=v2QzhFkdNQGqwOik&t=118Cause on the other parts according to LIDAR the steepness is not more than 4... | |
| 13 | 2024-11-04 11:23 | Superfebs ♦2 | I invite you to go hike that trail and see that "nothing" yourself, considering you rate the difficulty with the LIDAR steepness alone, not counting cracks, gullies and the terrain I've crossed, while you're judging from a bunch of satellite data. | |
| 14 | 2024-11-04 18:48 | Road–Runner ♦221 | I have just made my own summary of the changes that have been made here. But it's really a beautiful area. I am not so often in Trentino, but maybe I'll visit it sometime. :-) | |
| 15 | 2024-11-04 21:25 | Hungerburg ♦410 | @RoadRunner, the videos show what @Superfebs found the easy parts. Likely grade three not referring to UIAA III, so much can be seen too.Apart from that, I guess I meanwhile understand what the reference to "kompass" means, namely https://www.kompass.de/wanderkarte/ where sentiero 30 i... | |
| 16 | 2024-11-05 01:17 | Road–Runner ♦221 | @Hungerburg Unfortunately I don't have time for further discussions and will quit here. But I strongly discourage you from making further changes, as you don't have any local knowledge. Maybe there are cairns, traces? We don't know, the path is by the way also on other hiking maps lik... | |
| 17 | 2024-11-05 10:28 | supsup ♦9 | There is a signpost for the route at the bottom of the valley accordign to map. So there is something on the ground. | |
| 156298341 by 364 @ 2024-09-07 05:09 | 1 | 2024-09-07 05:12 | NeisBot ♦2,300 | Hi tdnkzht, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 84% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:- 3 highway(s)- 11 building(s)- 11 natural(s)- 26 landuse(')Could you please confirm if these de... |
| 2 | 2024-09-07 05:32 | 364 ♦3 | Yes, it is. This is an intentional change. | |
| 3 | 2024-09-08 11:44 | SomeoneElse | Hello 364,Can you explain why you deleted them?Best Regards,Andy | |
| 4 | 2024-09-09 05:50 | nyampire ♦190 | This user's edits include many pranks and acts of vandalism.I request that the user be suspended.I will revert the edits. | |
| 5 | 2024-09-09 08:31 | nyampire ♦190 | Reverted in 156379617, 156380279, 156380743, 156381480, 156381885 and 156382881. | |
| 6 | 2024-09-09 10:50 | 364 ♦3 | Thank you for your assistance. Thank you for contacting me. I would like to inform you that I live in the area and know more about this region than any other editor. I am confident that I can continue to contribute because I have a deep understanding of the characteristics and needs of this are... | |
| 7 | 2024-09-09 11:17 | SomeoneElse | @364 Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments | |
| 8 | 2024-09-09 12:40 | nyampire ♦190 | 存在しない駅名もそうですし、そもそも王宮とかないですよね。英語だからといってごまかせるものではないですよ。 | |
| 156315167 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2024-09-07 14:20 | 1 | 2024-09-09 09:00 | SomeoneElse | A day after this, the relation reappeared in the list of civil parishes in the local rendering database. |
| 156293926 by rupertmaesglas @ 2024-09-06 22:08 | 1 | 2024-09-08 14:45 | SomeoneElse | Hello Rupert,6 days ago you were sent this message: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16645 . You appear to be ignoring it. In this changeset (with comment "#hotosm-project-17514 #cydnerthedd #resilience #GreenWales added buildings") you appear to be carrying on the same activi... |
| 2 | 2024-09-09 08:40 | rupertmaesglas ♦7 | Hi Andy,Thanks for the message. I've opened up a topic here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/policy-on-accented-road-placenames-specifically-welsh/72145/3But I can't understand how to get a reponse, and Frederik mentions that 'I have ignored messages', so it seems I am ... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-09 08:41 | rupertmaesglas ♦7 | Ah yes, Andy,I have found the problem, and will correct it.Thanks for your help,Rupert | |
| 4 | 2024-09-09 08:42 | rupertmaesglas ♦7 | By the way, I did anything but ignore the message and spent many hours trying to track down these comments. To no avail.Thanks,Rupert | |
| 5 | 2024-09-09 08:54 | SomeoneElse | Re " I've opened up a topic" you've actually resurrected a topic from the old forum from 8 years ago!I've asked the UK c.osm.org moderators to move it to its own new topic. | |
| 6 | 2024-09-09 12:19 | rupertmaesglas ♦7 | Thank you very much.Best,Rupert | |
| 153323156 by univalence @ 2024-06-29 09:12 | 1 | 2024-08-26 13:55 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What source did you use for your edit to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5216237925/history ?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 16:16 | univalence ♦4 | hi Andy - as far as I remember, I mostly based it on the wikidata item and a quick google search. however obviously something must have gone wrong since the Wikidata item represents a castle, I probably misread it and thought it was some object of larger area in which case the edit would have made ... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-08 14:31 | SomeoneElse | What was the source of the wikidata item? It just looks like bot-created garbage: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q24661403&action=history .The locality in OSM is also rubbish; it looks like the source is OS OpenData and it's actually the name of the adjacent farm, not a separ... | |
| 4 | 2024-09-08 14:36 | SomeoneElse | Edited at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156354917 . | |
| 156191975 by Jason Suggs @ 2024-09-04 15:09 | 1 | 2024-09-08 13:20 | SomeoneElse | Hello Jason Suggs, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!From the imagery, it looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9009584 continues to the east of Mimsville. I appreciate that you've said "... They will be re-drawn ..." but (a) you've not done that and (b) that isn't norm... |
| 156288962 by DOLMark @ 2024-09-06 19:00 | 1 | 2024-09-07 06:53 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | There isn't exactly that, but building=ruins or building=yes + ruins=yes might work. Possibly building:levels=0 and height=0 might be better than using layer=-1 (which probably won't do anything). You could also add them as inner members of the surrounding natural=wood polygon, assuming th... |
| 2 | 2024-09-07 09:02 | DOLMark ♦1 | Lots of similar questions in community, no real answer. Best efforts which avoid the "removed without trace" lifecycle tags, seems to be:building=industrialbuilding:levels=0surface=concretehistoric=ruinsruins=* | |
| 3 | 2024-09-07 10:18 | SomeoneElse | Maybe try https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/51.6992/-0.0119/H which might do a better job of showing former buildings etc.? | |
| 156251795 by Torin (Lineman in NJ) @ 2024-09-05 23:58 Active block | 1 | 2024-09-06 14:30 | SomeoneElse | Please don't add things that no longer exist to OpenStreetMap!OSM is a map of how things are now, not things that have been demolished. |
| 148858813 by mlmesa @ 2024-03-19 12:31 | 1 | 2024-08-26 12:04 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You have changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/662637905/history to an unclassified road.What is your source for this?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-29 16:59 | matt_ellery ♦74 | I checked way 662637905 this afternoon. It's a private track/driveway, so unclassified is absolutely not correct.All the best,Matt | |
| 3 | 2024-09-04 20:02 | SomeoneElse | For info, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/6 . | |
| 156183488 by Hamad AlShammari @ 2024-09-04 12:16 | 1 | 2024-09-04 14:13 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What does "988" mean here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-09-04 14:13 | SomeoneElse | مرحبًا،ماذا يعني "988" هنا؟مع أطيب التحيات،آندي | |
| 155697545 by Adamkn @ 2024-08-24 13:47 | 1 | 2024-09-02 09:53 | SomeoneElse | Are you sure about "sac_scale=alpine_hiking" for Giddy Edge? It is halfway up a cliff, but it's not _that_ difficult, surely?Best Regards,Andy |
| 156065721 by CAI Salò @ 2024-09-01 17:45 | 1 | 2024-09-02 08:02 | SomeoneElse | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/alpinist-routes-marked-as-footpaths/117644/73 |
| 156064167 by mikkolukas @ 2024-09-01 17:08 Active block | 1 | 2024-09-01 21:20 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Was this mechanical edit discussed anywhere?Best Regards,Andy |
| 155802949 by Constrado @ 2024-08-26 21:11 Active block | 1 | 2024-08-27 17:41 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | a była dyskusja na forum na temat tej zmiany? Jak tak to podaj link w edycjijak dyskusji nie było lub propozycja została odrzucona - nie rób takiej edycjizmiany kategorii dróg wyższej (typu secondary) tego wymagają |
| 2 | 2024-08-28 21:25 | d3mol3k ♦168 | Wiedza lokalna? Nowe Warpno? Raczej nie od kilku lat część od ulicy Tadeusza Kościuszki po cypel to highway=living_street naki stoja na koću ulicy Tadeusza Kościuszki przed skrzyżowaniem:https://www.electro.pl/telefony-i-smartfony/smartfony/smartfon-xiaomi-poco-f5-pro-12-256gb-black?srsltid... | |
| 3 | 2024-09-01 21:10 | SomeoneElse | See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/prosba-do-zarzadu-osm/117380/10 "Can’t be secondary because of road signs D-40 “living street” and D-41 “end of living street”:" | |
| 156053346 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-09-01 13:01 | 1 | 2024-09-01 15:43 | SomeoneElse | Sowerby Bridge to Brighouse, from survey 2/8/2024, ts1131a |
| 117317393 by bigalxyz123 @ 2022-02-12 11:19 | 1 | 2024-08-30 08:49 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like this has made https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103563702/history all one long bridge.I'm guessing that this is not correct?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-31 09:29 | bigalxyz123 ♦5 | Hi Andy. Very odd. Have fixed the tags now so it should be ok.Regards, Alan | |
| 3 | 2024-08-31 10:20 | SomeoneElse | Great - thanks. | |
| 152536636 by Thingummy @ 2024-06-11 10:33 | 1 | 2024-08-30 08:47 | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like this edit has made https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98531456/history all one very long bridge.I'm guessing that that is not correct?Best Regards,Andy |
| 155831609 by NCN updates @ 2024-08-27 13:12 | 1 | 2024-08-28 10:09 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've deleted NCN266 here - is that no longer a thing?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-28 10:10 | SomeoneElse | (and NCN265) | |
| 3 | 2024-08-28 10:58 | NCN updates ♦2 | correct - those old NCN routes have been removed from the network and have now been resigned as the South Somerset Cycleway. This mirrors the official public facing NCN routes on Ordnance Survey mapping which show Sustrans' public facing route alignments. | |
| 4 | 2024-08-28 11:02 | SomeoneElse | So should they still be there as "rcn"s, or are those already mapped as something else? | |
| 5 | 2024-08-28 11:08 | NCN updates ♦2 | I've changed these sections to 'south somerset cycleway' which is marked as a regional route. I'm not sure if it's best labelled as regional or local, but it isn't part of the NCN at this point. Hope that helps, sorry if I haven't explained well. | |
| 155765774 by tokyoo @ 2024-08-26 06:44 | 1 | 2024-08-27 23:31 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 155854561 where the changeset comment is: Reverting an unfeasible 'Pokemon Go' park |
| 2 | 2024-08-27 23:36 | SomeoneElse | Hello tokyoo and welcome to OpenStreetMap!I've removed the "park" here because it doesn't seem to match reality - it just looks like residential gardens.If you've got any questions about what it is OK to add and what not, please don't hesitate to ask.Best Regards,... | |
| 155772266 by FlawOfAverages @ 2024-08-26 09:37 | 1 | 2024-08-26 13:44 | SomeoneElse | You've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11576255852/history , but perhaps it's worth asking the previous mapper when construction is likely to start? |
| 2 | 2024-08-27 08:18 | FlawOfAverages ♦13 | I deleted an incorrect node which was tagged as 'natural' - nothing to do with construction.There is a construction area marked just to the south. Maybe it will in the future, or already has, spread to this section but the satellite imagery doesn't show it yet. https://www.cala.co... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-27 09:43 | SomeoneElse | Cala Homes (the "natural" value you deleted) is a housebuilding company. | |
| 4 | 2024-08-27 11:55 | FlawOfAverages ♦13 | Oh I know who CALA are. I linked their website in my last update and am from the area. The 'natural' node has nothing to do with construction though which is why I deleted it and the construction area is mapped correctly as far as I can see just to the south. | |
| 154354931 by wielandb @ 2024-07-24 15:08 | 1 | 2024-08-26 13:52 | SomeoneElse | Hello,The change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1098931312/history looks like part of a mechanical edit. Was it discussed anywhere?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 14:46 | wielandb ♦132 | Hey,this challenge was in fact "partly" discussed. There were multiple threads where my challenge was discussed as an example for maproulette beeing used for "automated editing".See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-constitutes-an-editing-endeavour-that-needs... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-26 14:51 | SomeoneElse | Ah - thanks for that link! | |
| 4 | 2024-08-26 14:52 | wielandb ♦132 | Since there is no real other place for this comment in my regards, I saw you reported my maproulette challenge, claiming that "Author has been contacted but has not replied." Could you further specify what contact attempt you are talking about?In case you mean this changeset comment: I... | |
| 5 | 2024-08-26 15:16 | SomeoneElse | At https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/48596 under "get in touch" there's no reply from you (and of course you might not even have seen those comments). | |
| 153758053 by OrangeHurst97 @ 2024-07-09 19:39 | 1 | 2024-08-26 14:01 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've added 3 services to the Army reserve centre https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679618951/history - is that actually correct, or is it just the army?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 14:56 | OrangeHurst97 ♦11 | Hi Andy,When I surveyed this, I noted that there was signage for all three of the armed forces as tagged.I don't have any photos retained, but Bing Streetside (and Google Streetview) shows signs for the air force and army at the enterance. (maybe the navy was a temporary sign?)My understa... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-26 15:14 | SomeoneElse | Great - thanks for checking! | |
| 150789717 by ivanbranco @ 2024-05-02 11:39 | 1 | 2024-08-26 14:09 | SomeoneElse | Here you've changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/782427418/history from the distinctive "Market Hall" to "marketplace", which is something else. The colour is surely a misspelling too...Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 14:24 | ivanbranco ♦2,698 | Fixed here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155785660 | |
| 3 | 2024-08-26 14:47 | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 152884537 by PulisakZ @ 2024-06-19 09:07 | 1 | 2024-08-26 11:39 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What was the source of your change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269007903/history here?Survey, or something else?What is the access here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 11:56 | PulisakZ ♦45 | Hi Andy.Source was OS OpenMap Local (October 2022). Best regards, Zvonko. | |
| 3 | 2024-08-26 14:41 | SomeoneElse | I'm not sure you can use that to reliably distinguish between what in OSM would be called a track or a service road. Compare https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/58.9754/-3.3498/2 and https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/58.9754/-3.3498/6 , | |
| 152883250 by OliveraM @ 2024-06-19 08:43 | 1 | 2024-08-26 11:38 | SomeoneElse | Hello what was the source of your change and removal of information from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/843077021/history here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 12:34 | OliveraM ♦5 | Hi SomeoneElse, Change of classification was made due to inconsistency in tagging. As you can see in history, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/843077021 was classified as track, but smaller segment leading to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/843077022/history was classified as service.... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-26 14:38 | SomeoneElse | The "service road" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/843077022/history was added by an Amazon mapper using their piss-poor "AI". As you can see from the imagery, that extra bit does not access a house but a field to the south of the farmyard. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1... | |
| 147457017 by chris_debian @ 2024-02-14 15:56 | 1 | 2024-08-26 12:41 | SomeoneElse | This is wrong. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1250416670 is not a separate link road, it's just a turn lane on the A64.Please undo your changes to correct the junction. |
| 155106350 by ycool @ 2024-08-11 14:44 | 1 | 2024-08-26 12:32 | SomeoneElse | Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1307048775 is actually allotments and not just someone's vegetable garden?Best Regards,Andy |
| 155516937 by SK@ @ 2024-08-20 15:54 | 1 | 2024-08-26 12:17 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Any reason why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/556779914/history is now a service road but the continuation to the west isn't?Best Regards,Andy |
| 155516521 by SK@ @ 2024-08-20 15:45 | 1 | 2024-08-26 12:13 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40038655/history is residential? It looks like the access to the cottages is the other side of the wallBest Regards,Andy |
| 148858863 by mlmesa @ 2024-03-19 12:33 | 1 | 2024-08-26 12:06 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You have changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/537441214/history to an unclassified road. What is your source for this?Best Regards,Andy |
| 152627781 by Misa_zumba @ 2024-06-13 10:59 | 1 | 2024-08-26 11:23 | SomeoneElse | Hello,In this changeset you've removed the previous indications that this is actually a public bridleway. Have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/582702738/history and you'll see what I mean.What I'd suggest that you do here is to contact the previous mappers and ask the... |
| 2 | 2024-08-27 06:55 | Misa_zumba ♦40 | As you recommended, I reached out to Futura69 to clarify whether there is a bridleway sign. | |
| 153573252 by magrej @ 2024-07-05 06:08 | 1 | 2024-08-24 12:47 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've removed an access tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143092566/history - how could you tell from aerial imagery?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 09:58 | magrej ♦24 | Hi Andy,I made that decision based on the cars that are visible on Bing aerial imagery. Motor vehicle=no suggests that it is restricted for all vehicles. Maybe access=private would be more appropriate, similar to the service road already tagged like that on the neighboring West farm.Cheers,m... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-26 10:12 | SomeoneElse | "access=private" does make sense here, so I've added it.https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/404748 does look at "likely access tags where not declared" and for track (and service is similar) "private" is the likely correct value in England and Wa... | |
| 139850646 by Mr_Beeblebrox @ 2023-08-14 03:12 | 1 | 2023-08-14 03:19 | Mr_Beeblebrox ♦1 | https://www.york.gov.uk/york-city-centre/city-walls/2Turns out this is an actual name - is there a way to quickly undo this erroneous change? |
| 2 | 2024-08-26 09:55 | SomeoneElse | I was chasing down a rendering problem wondering why the name did not appear at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#22/53.95317/-1.08447 , and then realised that someone had removed it!To answer the question, the easiest way to "undo an erroneous change" in a case like this is... | |
| 155719790 by Friendly_Ghost @ 2024-08-25 03:35 | 1 | 2024-08-25 03:41 | GeeMaps! ♦30 | Thanks for spotting them! |
| 2 | 2024-08-25 04:35 | TrickyFoxy ♦984 | It seems to remove the mapping of _natural_ objects that were visible before the conflict is too much | |
| 3 | 2024-08-25 11:11 | SomeoneElse | @TrickyFoxy https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308852272/history was/is pretty obviously a temporary structure. No source was given in the changeset that added it, so it's really not verifiable.The natural objects changed seem to be https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308852277/history and ht... | |
| 4 | 2024-08-25 11:12 | SomeoneElse | The user adding these features has been asked to not map temporary ones at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16614 already. | |
| 5 | 2024-08-25 11:21 | TrickyFoxy ♦984 | I'm not arguing about temporary bridges. But what about the roads? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308852275https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308852273https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308852273 | |
| 6 | 2024-08-25 11:54 | Friendly_Ghost ♦636 | The only reason these tracks were mapped was because they linked the pontoon to the road network. | |
| 7 | 2024-08-25 12:03 | TrickyFoxy ♦984 | This is not a reason to delete valid roads that are visible in the images before the conflict and will not disappear after it. Strictly speaking in this changeset only one point refers to the pontoon bridge.Otherwise, according to this logic, we should prohibit all edits in this area | |
| 8 | 2024-08-25 18:04 | Friendly_Ghost ♦636 | Sounds good to me. Let people map something away from the front lines. OSM doesn't need to play a role in the information war that surrounds this (or any other) military conflict. But if you really must, I won't stop you from putting those tracks back on the map. | |
| 155601006 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2024-08-22 11:35 | 1 | 2024-08-22 15:01 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | I've got a race in Battersea Park next Wednesday, so I'll check if I have time. I've left a note in case I don't.https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4396917 |
| 2 | 2024-08-22 19:56 | SomeoneElse | Great stuff - thanks! | |
| 155329776 by leofra31 @ 2024-08-16 14:09 | 1 | 2024-08-16 19:32 | LySioS ♦125 | Bonjour,je pense que tu t'es trompé de tag : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity%3Dparcel_locker |
| 2 | 2024-08-17 12:45 | infeeeee ♦526 | You requested a review, but it's not easy to review such a big bounding box.Can you link to the related discussion? It's also possible that some of them should be retagged as amenity=luggage_locker instead.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dluggage_locker | |
| 3 | 2024-08-19 16:57 | leofra31 ♦12 | Hi @infeeeee,I didn't make a discussion, I was just correcting a typo but as it's the first time i do such an edit, I just wanted someone else to check that i didn't mess anything up. I'd love to correct the ones that should be tagged as luggage locker but I don't know h... | |
| 4 | 2024-08-22 09:56 | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from the Data Working Group here. Because of the ambiguity, I suspect that it's best to roll this change back.Anyone that sees an "amenity=lockers" locally can decide to go and visit it and decide whether it is an amenity=luggage_locker , amenity=parcel_locker or somet... | |
| 5 | 2024-08-22 10:08 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 155597263 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a well-meaning but flawed edit to amenity=lockers. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155329776 | |
| 6 | 2024-08-23 02:12 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | with just 157 worldwide making dedicated SC quest makes no senseI would rather comment on changeset comment that added them or open notes to make this more visible to local mappersNote that SC will show by default notes including "?" or "#surveyme" | |
| 155489510 by Hakan865 @ 2024-08-20 04:50 | 1 | 2024-08-20 18:51 | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've added an "indoor fire alarm box" https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12121514172 that is apparently underwater?Should it perhaps be tagged as something else?Best Regards,Andy |
| 155435949 by MKBE_ @ 2024-08-18 21:58 | 1 | 2024-08-18 22:14 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 155436301 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some temporary roadworks edits. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16591 |
| 2 | 2024-08-18 22:18 | SomeoneElse | As previously noted:Please discuss these edits in the forum first. You'll need to persuade people that:o the data you are using has a suitable licenceo the roads are closed for long enough to make it worth changing. | |
| 155362732 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-08-17 10:05 | 1 | 2024-08-17 11:40 | SomeoneElse | The massive bounding box is perhaps due to relation edits. The actual edits are at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=155362732 |
| 155256151 by Russ McD @ 2024-08-14 19:14 | 1 | 2024-08-15 08:41 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What was the source of the change here? On-site survey? Something else?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-16 07:46 | Russ McD ♦223 | Andy ... something else !It does appear in the National Street Gazetteer as mixed responsibility for maintenance, which is a good indication of public access.Feel free to reinstate the fixme if that's not sufficient to warrant the change. I try my best to reduce RoW errors & fixme... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-16 10:02 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | According to Essex County Council's PRoW GIS Data (which we can use in OSM under the OGL) it's a BOAT as far as the parish boundary. See https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/epping-forest/nazeing/ . This is about as close as we can get to a definitive answer. | |
| 4 | 2024-08-16 10:14 | Russ McD ♦223 | Robert - thanks for clarifying, and adding to the tags.Just a shame its a dead end for vehicles ... and I betcha it carried on south once upon a time ! | |
| 5 | 2024-08-16 10:18 | SomeoneElse | Thanks both! | |
| 155314267 by aliabranestudio @ 2024-08-16 07:54 | 1 | 2024-08-16 09:42 | SomeoneElse | Spam. Same comments apply here as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154646346 |
| 155038204 by Cubano153 @ 2024-08-09 19:39 | 1 | 2024-08-15 15:14 | SomeoneElse | Hello Cubano153,As I mentioned earlier I've reverted and redacted data changed by changesets such as this one which used Google as a source.We cannot use Google because its licence is not compatible with OSM.Because of the interlinked nature of your changesets, there is some tidying up ... |
| 2 | 2024-08-15 15:14 | SomeoneElse | Hola Cubano153,Como mencioné antes, he revertido y redactado datos modificados por conjuntos de cambios como este que usaba Google como fuente.No podemos usar Google porque su licencia no es compatible con OSM.Debido a la naturaleza interconectada de sus conjuntos de cambios, hay algu... | |
| 154858829 by Cubano153 @ 2024-08-05 16:27 | 1 | 2024-08-05 22:56 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | Please use proper sources and changeset comments. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments |
| 2 | 2024-08-05 22:57 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,069 | reverted | |
| 3 | 2024-08-15 12:25 | SomeoneElse | Hello Cubano153,As has already been mentioned, we can't use Google as a source because their licence is not compatible with ours.These changes have already been reverted, but we'll also need to redact them.Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. | |
| 154542451 by Raqif Mingaçuv @ 2024-07-29 01:28 Active block | 1 | 2024-07-30 12:57 | empty_child ♦341 | All your activities were reverted. A claim was sent to DWGhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154605287 |
| 2 | 2024-08-08 21:07 | Raqif Mingaçuv Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2024-08-09 09:44 | empty_child ♦341 | Because it's an international project, like Wikipedia. Our duty - provide maps, despite our political sights | |
| 4 | 2024-08-09 16:27 | Raqif Mingaçuv Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 5 | 2024-08-09 18:39 | empty_child ♦341 | I report every vandal if I notice it in my region (Georgia). If I begin reporting in different regions, it means that my region's boundaries were triggered, and I'm in rage | |
| 6 | 2024-08-10 20:04 | Raqif Mingaçuv Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 7 | 2024-08-10 20:33 | empty_child ♦341 | Man, I fed up with all this hystericus. I had one patient, who removed Russian names from local tags just for fun. A hecking pile of Azerbaijanis, who removed Armenian toponyms, and pile of Armenians, who removed Azerbaijanis ones. I hecking fed up with all these dismoraling activity. I will call DW... | |
| 8 | 2024-08-11 00:38 | Raqif Mingaçuv Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 9 | 2024-08-15 11:57 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've already added this comment to several other "conflict changesets" here.Accusing each other of vandalism and reverting changes without discussion won't get us anywhere. Please discuss these changes on the forum together. Tags already exist there for https://commun... | |
| 155258480 by Khidistavi @ 2024-08-14 20:21 | 1 | 2024-08-15 11:57 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've already added this comment to several other "conflict changesets" here.Accusing each other of vandalism and reverting changes without discussion won't get us anywhere. Please discuss these changes on the forum together. Tags already exist there for https://commun... |
| 155077894 by Raqif Mingaçuv @ 2024-08-10 20:36 Active block | 1 | 2024-08-15 11:32 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm adding this comment to each of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077463 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077906 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077446 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077894 . Accusing each other of vandalism and re... |
| 155077446 by Raqif Mingaçuv @ 2024-08-10 20:18 Active block | 1 | 2024-08-15 11:32 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm adding this comment to each of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077463 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077906 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077446 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077894 . Accusing each other of vandalism and re... |
| 155077906 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2024-08-10 20:37 | 1 | 2024-08-15 11:32 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm adding this comment to each of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077463 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077906 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077446 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077894 . Accusing each other of vandalism and re... |
| 155077463 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2024-08-10 20:19 | 1 | 2024-08-15 11:31 | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm adding this comment to each of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077463 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077906 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077446 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155077894 . Accusing each other of vandalism and re... |
| 155257381 by Russ McD @ 2024-08-14 19:46 | 1 | 2024-08-15 08:45 | SomeoneElse | You've said "Correcting designation to sign erected in 2022" but can we have a link to the sign?You've changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35030994/history from a UCR to a BOAT (both valid designations, though the tagging of the former varies). If this really was a BOAT ... |
| 2 | 2024-08-15 09:09 | SomeoneElse | I'd suggest discussing these changes at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-changes-to-designation-in-england-and-wales/117463 . | |
| 3 | 2024-08-15 20:08 | Russ McD ♦223 | There was a Boat sign erected so I assumed it had been legally changed, however it still appears on the List of Streets as an "Unclassified highway" and can't find any record of the change in the Derbyshire CC records. OK in this instance mapping ground truth was probably wrong wit... | |
| 107904649 by Russ McD @ 2021-07-13 11:19 | 1 | 2024-06-04 15:36 | eteb3 ♦113 | Hi Russ,Can you help me with the meaning of "UCR" on the track w913572485, and its neighbour? Thanks,eteb3 |
| 2 | 2024-06-04 16:18 | Russ McD ♦223 | Hi,Yes a long time ago, in an attempt to differentiate the legal status of tracks/roads with vehicular rights, anything I had researched and was proven to be a Unclassified Country Road (UCR) had that put in the name tag. Current Ordnance Survey maps call them ORPA's.While not strictly fo... | |
| 3 | 2024-06-04 16:33 | eteb3 ♦113 | That helps! Thanks. | |
| 4 | 2024-08-15 08:56 | SomeoneElse | Clearly UCR here is not a name, it is a designation ("unclassified_county_road") . See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1PLS ."designation=unclassified_highway" is used in other places to mean the same thing, but people normally tag what is signed and verifiable locally. | |
| 5 | 2024-08-16 07:28 | Russ McD ♦223 | So if it has a sign saying "Unclassified County Road" then that can be used in the Name tag ?Or are we saying that the local sign becomes the designation tag ?And if "unclassifed_county_road" is now becoming accepted as a valid designation tag, please can this be documented i... | |
| 155255810 by Russ McD @ 2024-08-14 19:06 | 1 | 2024-08-15 08:49 | SomeoneElse | What was the source of the change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226989350/history here? Does the signage really say "unclassified_highway" rather than "unclassified_country_road"? In some areas the latter signage is pretty common? |
| 2 | 2024-08-15 20:37 | Russ McD ♦223 | Despite the signage varying across the UK, some years ago I was chastised for using the Unclassified County Road designation. So when I stumbled across Unclassified COUNTRY Road, apart from wanting to sing John Denver, I thought I would change it to a more conventional tag.This action seem to be... | |
| 155255687 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2024-08-14 19:02 | 1 | 2024-08-14 19:06 | SomeoneElse | This edit moves horses from the sidewalk onto the road. That's consistent with the current OSM tagging, but it's possible that there is special off-road provision for horses here. If that's the case, it's likely that there's access from https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3... |
| 155236325 by blankerne @ 2024-08-14 11:51 Active block | 1 | 2024-08-14 15:10 | SomeoneElse | Your changeset comment here is "fantasy".Can you explain what you mean by that? |
| 2 | 2024-08-15 05:13 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hello SomeoneElse,I think this new users changesets look very similar to user Grayson Braham-Dopwell who has just been blocked.I'll leave it for you to revert if you think the same.Regards Bernard. | |
| 3 | 2024-08-15 09:43 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 155274758 where the changeset comment is: Reverting alleged fantasy mapping. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16584 | |
| 155239586 by blankerne @ 2024-08-14 12:55 Active block | 1 | 2024-08-14 15:07 | SomeoneElse | Hello,What is the source and licence of this data?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-08-15 09:43 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 155274758 where the changeset comment is: Reverting alleged fantasy mapping. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16584 | |
| 155143045 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-08-12 11:11 | 1 | 2024-08-12 11:11 | SomeoneElse | (source is local_knowledge) |
| 154996123 by Pieter Vander Vennet @ 2024-08-08 20:14 | 1 | 2024-08-08 20:19 | Pieter Vander Vennet ♦445 | Also see https://mapstodon.space/@alan@subdued.social/112884510553493010 |
| 2 | 2024-08-12 09:55 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for updating this! | |
| 154845011 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-08-05 11:07 | 1 | 2024-08-07 21:31 | SomeoneElse | Oops - wrong account - should have been "SomeoneElse2" used for this. |
| 142319238 by HaPe-CZ @ 2023-10-08 20:09 | 1 | 2024-08-05 11:20 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | Hello,You have changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/283481300/history to a "railway=halt". It is not. The station is already mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168176083Can you please review these edits to remove any other duplications you may have added? |
| 2 | 2024-08-07 10:04 | HaPe-CZ ♦91 | Okay, is it any better? | |
| 3 | 2024-08-07 10:22 | SomeoneElse | Yes - I'm sure that is what the original mapper meant. | |
| 4 | 2024-08-07 10:26 | SomeoneElse | I've also taken the liberty of adding a changeset discussion comment that explained what happened a little better than "update area" :) | |
| 5 | 2024-08-07 12:15 | HaPe-CZ ♦91 | ok | |
| 154927584 by HaPe-CZ @ 2024-08-07 10:03 | 1 | 2024-08-07 10:25 | SomeoneElse | For info, the change here updated a number of railway stop positions from "railway=halt" (which they weren't) to "public_transport=stop_position" (which is what they seem to be. The history of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/283481300/history shows what happened. See ... |
| 154756773 by Wolowitz @ 2024-08-03 00:36 | 1 | 2024-08-05 19:37 | SomeoneElse | Is a direct route from Forster Square to King's Cross even a thing? |
| 2 | 2024-08-05 19:43 | Wolowitz ♦1 | Yeah, e.g. today: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C46896/2024-08-05/detailed#allox_id=0And in general: https://www.lner.co.uk/globalassets/lner-route-map-may-2022.pdf | |
| 3 | 2024-08-05 20:04 | SomeoneElse | Must have given the commuters of Kirkstall Forge a shock! | |
| 154656143 by Nordpfeil @ 2024-07-31 15:38 | 1 | 2024-07-31 20:34 | HellMap ♦676 | Hello,It seems this edit is replacing tagging that specifies repairs are for tyres with a generic `repair` tag, i.e. `tyres:repair=yes` (previously `repair=tyres`) to `repair=yes`. This has lost information about tyre repair and made it imply that the shops offer general repairs.Can you plea... |
| 2 | 2024-08-03 10:24 | HellMap ♦676 | Can you please take a look at your change and fix it as necessary? | |
| 3 | 2024-08-05 19:00 | SomeoneElse | @Nordpfeil was this mechanical edit discussed anywhere? | |
| 4 | 2024-08-05 19:00 | SomeoneElse | @Nordpfeil wurde diese mechanische Bearbeitung irgendwo besprochen? | |
| 5 | 2024-08-08 19:27 | Nordpfeil ♦83 | For me the definition in the Wiki is clear:repair=yes \tRepair service for any goods that belong to the category of goods sold in the shop. So the shop is only selling tyres, there is no risk of such misinterpretation | |
| 6 | 2024-08-08 19:52 | HellMap ♦676 | This also changed it for `shop=car_repair` and `shop=car_parts`, which is not only tyres. | |
| 7 | 2024-08-09 07:38 | Nordpfeil ♦83 | Unfortunately I did not see that. I will try to reverse it. | |
| 8 | 2024-08-09 16:08 | user_5359 ♦19,400 | Revertiert auf Bitten vom Originalautor Nordpfeil mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155030566Reverted at the request of the original author Nordpfeil with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155030566 | |
| 146041205 by Thierry1030 @ 2024-01-08 19:28 | 1 | 2024-08-04 13:11 | SomeoneElse | It's a bit of a long shot, but do you think that this route actually exists anywhere else outside Belgium?There is a discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/revert-changeset-147456494/116932 where someone is complaining about the deletion, and also in https://www.openstreetmap.org... |
| 154646346 by aliabranestudio @ 2024-07-31 12:11 | 1 | 2024-08-03 21:35 | ivanbranco ♦2,698 | Is it really open 24/7?Also, is this a real place? There's no mention of Morsott in the linked website |
| 2 | 2024-08-03 22:11 | SomeoneElse | Likely just spam - the typos on their "top noch website" (sic) suggest so. | |
| 154768009 by MKBE_3 @ 2024-08-03 10:25 Active block | 1 | 2024-08-03 18:00 | SomeoneElse | Please try and use more descriptive changeset comments |
| 127409193 by Mauls @ 2022-10-12 11:16 | 1 | 2024-08-03 13:29 | SomeoneElse | I've frequently (https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=24119 ) complained about your railway edits being of poor quality, in the wrong place and duplicating existing features. I had not previously realised that you are also doing this with canals https://map.atownsend.org... |
| 147456494 by noelbov @ 2024-02-14 15:44 | 1 | 2024-03-28 06:36 | zstadler ♦1,055 | Hello noelbov,In this edit you have deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1626371 that is given as an examle of a type=superroute relations in the OSM wikihttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute#ExampleCould you elaborate on the reasons for deleting this relation? |
| 2 | 2024-03-28 18:34 | zstadler ♦1,055 | Hello noelbov,In this edit you have deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1626371 that is given as an examle of a type=superroute relations in the OSM wikihttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute#ExampleCould you elaborate on the reasons for deleting this relation? | |
| 3 | 2024-08-03 09:32 | SomeoneElse | See also discussion at forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/revert-changeset-147456494/116932 . | |
| 154751702 by Qizhen Ruan @ 2024-08-02 20:03 | 1 | 2024-08-03 08:23 | SomeoneElse | Hello Qizhen Ruan,What was the actual error that was fixed here? All of your recent changeset comments are just "fix error" - it'd be really useful to have something more descriptive. Have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments for suggestions.Be... |
| 154214279 by LEO-LL @ 2024-07-21 11:16 | 1 | 2024-07-31 16:45 | SomeoneElse | Hello,The names that you added here have been removed, presumably because they are not verifiable by other mappers. If you have photographic evidence for these names as being current I suggest that you produce them.Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group |
| 2 | 2024-08-02 21:30 | LEO-LL ♦7 | Dear Andy @SomeoneElse You can find some of photographic evidence on our website:https://leo.ll.land/liberland-poi/as well as maps of Gornja Siga - Liberland: https://leo.ll.land/maps/ | |
| 3 | 2024-08-02 22:40 | SomeoneElse | Most of these names don't seem to be mentioned there, but I can see a sign that someone has made and stuck on a tree saying "Liberty Street" (no idea when). I'd have thought that that is at best a "loc_name". | |
| 153968975 by Vlad370 @ 2024-07-15 12:03 | 1 | 2024-08-02 10:08 | SomeoneElse | Hello Vlad370,Please don't use the production database for testing.Best Regards,Andy |
| 154397693 by Getpin_Com @ 2024-07-25 14:35 | 1 | 2024-07-25 19:22 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 | This is part of mass edit that added spam content, failed to be discussed properly and should be reverted.See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/getpin-automatyczna-edycje-pko/114423/17 |
| 2 | 2024-08-02 09:54 | SomeoneElse | @Getpin_Com Please emai data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2024073110000375] alleged spam" to discuss this and similar edits. | |
| 154725436 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-08-02 08:57 | 1 | 2024-08-02 09:42 | SomeoneElse | Also the A14 and M1 to Derby, and bus stops in Derby |
| 154706508 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-08-01 18:32 | 1 | 2024-08-01 18:34 | SomeoneElse | Prompted by discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/effect-of-oneway-on-pedestrians/7631/119 . One more geometrical change needs to be done that isn't a good candidate for Vespucci. |
| 154642044 by MKBE_3 @ 2024-07-31 10:28 Active block | 1 | 2024-07-31 22:57 | SomeoneElse | Perhaps the easiest way to upload a picture as a source is to add a note with StreetComplete https://streetcomplete.app/ and record a picture at the same time. Then reference the note in the changeset comment. When you resolve the note, StreetComplete will delete the picture. |
| 154584437 by cubbe8 @ 2024-07-30 00:26 | 1 | 2024-07-31 16:18 | SomeoneElse | Hello cubbe8,It'd be great if you could be a bit more descriptive about your changeset comments, rather than just "updates" or similar.Have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_commentsBest Regards,Andy |
| 154621851 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2024-07-30 19:57 | 1 | 2024-07-30 20:02 | SomeoneElse | Removed "spur" - and filled in a couple of gaps. |
| 154601092 by jqngarcia @ 2024-07-30 11:18 | 1 | 2024-07-30 12:09 | SomeoneElse | (to save anyone looking) the change to the E15 was the removal of a couple of nodes that were in there in error - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103222/history/1025 . A couple of Scottish roundabouts are still in there in error. |
| 2 | 2024-07-30 18:06 | jqngarcia ♦130 | Ok, he borrado algunos nodos erroneos en el ultimo cambio, subo otro, trasladandolos de la superuta a la ruta de EscociaSalud y Mapas, JQN | |
| 154580760 by MKBE_2 @ 2024-07-29 20:55 Active block | 1 | 2024-07-29 21:10 | SomeoneElse | What was the source of this data? |
| 154574880 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-07-29 18:14 | 1 | 2024-07-29 18:19 | SomeoneElse | This is not "the" original rules of football; merely one set - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_the_Game_(association_football)#Pre-1863 for a bit of the history.The oldest club football rules are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Rules and the oldest club plays at https:/... |
| 154323209 by gileri @ 2024-07-23 20:20 | 1 | 2024-07-23 22:57 | Syl ♦961 | Bonsoir, tu fais également partie de cette guerre d'édition et tu continues de l'alimenter avec cette modification, merci d'arrêter de faire des modifications de ce type en attendant d'avoir une réponse du DWG.(Pour info j'ai déjà d... |
| 2 | 2024-07-24 19:12 | SomeoneElse | Hello gileri,Given the recent discussions about naming practices in both the French and the International forums in which you were in a minority of one, do you have any evidence (such as a photograph) of the name change that you made here?Unfortunately the nearest Mapillary photo https://www.map... | |
| 3 | 2024-07-24 19:12 | SomeoneElse | Bonjour Gileri,Compte tenu des discussions récentes sur les pratiques de dénomination dans les forums français et internationaux dans lesquelles vous étiez en minorité d'un, avez-vous des preuves (comme une photographie) du changement de nom que vous avez ef... | |
| 4 | 2024-07-24 19:24 | gileri ♦1,003 | Hello Andy, please consult the recent discussion you said your read, you have all the elements you need to see what the real-world situation there is, and that the name is present. Multiple people that are against mapping the name have corroborated the claim.I've never misrepresented the tr... | |
| 5 | 2024-07-24 19:24 | trial ♦870 | Andy, a better photo is https://cutjhqvjma.cloudimg.io/https%3A%2F%2Ftelemaque.orpi.coop%2Fagence%2F857%2F20231204193424%2Fphoto?p=agency-home&ci_url_encoded=1&ci_sign=a93972573a6c344f7b7e8d58bc09857d5a14cf4f (present on orpi website given on this node), if on the ground it would have been d... | |
| 6 | 2024-07-24 19:49 | SomeoneElse | That photo certainly does not back up the long name used in this changeset. | |
| 7 | 2024-07-24 19:52 | gileri ♦1,003 | Here is a clearer picture I took a few days ago, perhaps it'll be easier : https://imgur.com/a/2NsHgZN | |
| 8 | 2024-07-24 19:57 | gileri ♦1,003 | That corroborates the name chosen by the shop, visible in the website and other maps.I don't know if you are familiar with them, but Orpi is a national brand of real estate, it's not their name.As explained in the thread, sometimes shop, for stylistic reasons, may shorten a bit the... | |
| 9 | 2024-07-24 20:03 | SomeoneElse | As noted at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/restructure-wiki-page-key-name/110631/148 the "name on a website" is not guaranteed to be the name. It might just be some descriptive information about location. | |
| 10 | 2024-07-24 20:05 | SomeoneElse | More seriously, OSM is a shared project. If "everyone else" thinks one thing and you think another, then it does not matter if you think you are right or wrong, you have to tag it as the majority of mappers would. By all means find some other obscure tag to store "descriptive name as... | |
| 11 | 2024-07-24 20:16 | gileri ♦1,003 | That was already answered in the thread in the last messages.>you have to tag it as the majority of mappers wouldCan you point me to rules that prescribe that ?To the contrary, OSM is a healthy community of diverse mappers. Diversity, in opinion here, is paramount to the project, to a... | |
| 12 | 2024-07-24 20:17 | trial ♦870 | Thanks for the picture.So correctly tagged before you changes:alt_name=Millet Immobilierinscription=Orpiold_name=Millet ImmobilierAnd not:name=Orpi Millet Immobilier Pierre-Bénite | |
| 13 | 2024-07-24 20:21 | gileri ♦1,003 | No, the v21 version is corretly tagged as explained above.Why would "Millier Immobilier" be an old name ? It is used everywhere in the shop.Also, the inscription is incorrect, for reasons explained already.alt_name can be okay, I have no opinion on it. | |
| 14 | 2024-07-29 15:40 | SomeoneElse | It certainly seems that "Orpi Millet Immobilier Pierre-Bénite" is NOT considered by most people as the best name to use here.I've noted that no-one has changed it back; are people waiting for me to do that? | |
| 15 | 2024-07-29 15:47 | gileri ♦1,003 | I'm not sure the "most people" you refer to here are relevant. Multiple of those demonstrated that they did not go on the ground, and ignore both on-the-ground reality, and wiki best practices. | |
| 16 | 2024-07-29 16:06 | SomeoneElse | @gileri In this example that argument is clearly rubbish. Here we have numerous photos including one from you that does not support your choice of name! | |
| 17 | 2024-07-29 16:15 | gileri ♦1,003 | I already explained why would using the name from the website, which is only slightly different from the ground, makes most sense.But sure, let's use what is printed on the storefront, it's not really important here. | |
| 18 | 2024-07-30 11:53 | Syl ♦961 | @SomeoneElse Hello, I'm waiting for the conflict to end before editing again here.@gileri Bonjour, après une pause je reviens vers cette discussion. Mais avant de me mettre à rédiger plus, je voulais te demander si tu es partant pour relancer une dernière fois ce... | |
| 19 | 2024-07-30 16:35 | gileri ♦1,003 | Bonjour Syl, Je ne comprends pas bien ta requête :Ma position est claire, alignée avec les bonnes pratiques OSM, le wiki, le terrain, les usagers. Les arguments ont été présentés sous plusieurs angles, et plusieurs langues.Malheureusement il a é... | |
| 20 | 2024-07-30 20:30 | Syl ♦961 | Je voulais remettre à plat la discussion car mon ressenti est identique au tien mais te concernant (non respect du terrain et des principes, non réponse aux questions, suspicion de mauvaise foi...). Cela ne donne pas une situation saine et je souhaitais sortir de cette impasse.Je te ... | |
| 21 | 2024-07-30 20:49 | gileri ♦1,003 | En refusant d'aller sur le terrain, de s'ouvrir aux usagers, ignorant mes précédentes réponses (tu demandes de "tout remettre à plat"), ce n'est pas du tout respectueux. Ça ne présage rien de bon pour la "discussion".Me... | |
| 22 | 2024-07-30 20:51 | gileri ♦1,003 | Peut-être une prochaine fois pour des échanges plus constructifs ;) | |
| 23 | 2024-07-30 21:13 | Syl ♦961 | Ma demande de remise à plat concernait le cadre que tu donne à la discussion (accusation de mauvaise foi, de manque d'honnêteté, d'avoir du temps à perdre, de ne pas lire, de ne pas penser aux usagers et maintenant de présumer de mes intentions). Vo... | |
| 24 | 2024-07-30 21:49 | gileri ♦1,003 | Ma proposition pour aller sur le lieu concerné et échanger avec les usagers est toujours ouverte, mais si c'est pas possible pour toi aucun problème. | |
| 25 | 2024-08-03 12:56 | Syl ♦961 | Je pensais qu'on avait déjà répondu sur le fait qu'aller demander sur place ne réglerais pas le désaccord de fond. Si j'acceptais ta proposition cela reviendrais à dire que je suis d'accord avec toi et que ce ne serait qu'un probl&eg... | |
| 154346511 by MKBE_2 @ 2024-07-24 11:52 Active block | 1 | 2024-07-24 13:24 | SomeoneElse | Hello MKBE_2,"until 25/7/24" is basically "until tomorrow. It really isn't work making edits to "close" roads in OSM for a day. The cadence with which people consume OSM data varies greatly. Some renderers update every minute or so; routers generally take a few d... |
| 2 | 2024-07-24 13:33 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 154350737 where the changeset comment is: Reverting very temporary change in MK; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154346511 | |
| 153187999 by MKBE_2 @ 2024-06-26 07:29 Active block | 1 | 2024-07-08 20:58 | SomeoneElse | Hello MKBE_,Temporary restrictions such as this tend not to be mapped "live" in OSM. If a road is closed for months, that's a different story. The reason for this is that the cadence of updates from OSM that users see varies hugely (in apps, monthly is common).For further disc... |
| 2 | 2024-07-22 13:54 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | @SomeoneElse perhaps you'd like to look at this user with your DWG hat on? | |
| 3 | 2024-07-22 13:54 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | * look at this user again, I mean | |
| 4 | 2024-07-22 14:02 | SomeoneElse | Yes - got the other note.I'll probably kick off a discussion in the forum about it. | |
| 5 | 2024-07-22 14:05 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | Thanks. I was about to post something to the forum, but as you do tact and diplomacy infinitely better than I do... | |
| 6 | 2024-07-24 10:33 | rskedgell ♦1,477 | Now reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154343220 | |
| 154117129 by An Kerdher @ 2024-07-18 19:59 | 1 | 2024-07-19 10:32 | SomeoneElse | Thanks for mapping the wall and fence here! |
| 153727579 by DorneyLake123 @ 2024-07-09 04:30 | 1 | 2024-07-09 17:05 | SomeoneElse | Oops - there's now a gap in http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=8271587 :) |
| 2 | 2024-07-16 23:48 | SomeoneElse | I've filled the gaps in in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154035693 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154035732 . | |
| 153983892 by insurljurn @ 2024-07-15 17:56 | 1 | 2024-07-15 18:07 | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!Please use more meaningful changeset comments than just "." - that does not explain to other mappers what you were doing. |
| 153118676 by DorneyLake123 @ 2024-06-24 15:43 | 1 | 2024-07-14 23:02 | SomeoneElse | You've said "re-add vaguer protected area boundary" - can you explain what boundary you "re-added"? The tagging changes can be seen at https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1270661319 . Are you sure that a local authority country park really meets the criteria set out at https... |
| 2 | 2024-07-14 23:03 | SomeoneElse | The discussion of this was at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/black-park-north-of-slough-whats-the-best-tag/114959 . I'd suggest that you join the discussion there. | |
| 153906250 by Friendly_Ghost @ 2024-07-13 19:01 | 1 | 2024-07-14 18:41 | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16451 |
| 153930837 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-07-14 13:30 | 1 | 2024-07-14 14:04 | SomeoneElse | Actually most of this was the Knaresborough section of the Harrogate Ringway |
| 153924597 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-07-14 10:39 | 1 | 2024-07-14 12:43 | SomeoneElse | This covers one side of Harlow Carr, but the other side still needs nudging to match a survey on 28/06 |
| 152291681 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2024-06-05 14:42 | 1 | 2024-06-05 14:42 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 148893151, 148893176, 148893184, 148893547, 148893592, 148893813, 148893836, 148893862. |
| 2 | 2024-07-14 08:33 | Dimitar155 ♦662 | Hey Andy, I'm restoring nodes with ids 11747281021 and 11747295873. Both of them are present on the Bulgarian geonames register (https://geonames.cadastre.bg).https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153920625 | |
| 3 | 2024-07-14 10:14 | SomeoneElse | Thanks | |
| 153694418 by waldyrious @ 2024-07-08 09:31 | 1 | 2024-07-08 11:56 | mcliquid ♦1,860 | Personally I'm okay with this edit but it should not be done according to Wiki:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk#Deprecation_of_sidewalk=none |
| 2 | 2024-07-08 14:07 | waldyrious ♦27 | Thanks for the comment! I actually had read that section before, and the discussions linked from it, but between the actual contents of the discussions (which seem to have mostly coalesced around agreement for deprecating "none" as long as it's explicitly documented as such), and the ... | |
| 3 | 2024-07-08 14:10 | mcliquid ♦1,860 | To be honest, I'm fine with the changes. But I didn't put the paragraph in the wiki either and just wanted to point it out :) | |
| 4 | 2024-07-08 14:39 | waldyrious ♦27 | I appreciate that you did — I had read the discussions before, but didn't have their detailed contents front of mind when I made this edit (I guess I just internalized back then that there was a general consensus to drop "none").I have now commented in two of the discussions... | |
| 5 | 2024-07-13 16:52 | SomeoneElse | Clearly everything of value is mapped in Europe so we can get on with merging synonyms (which everyone surely consumes now, and will continue to consume, in perpetuity):) | |
| 153889937 by cybermapper @ 2024-07-13 11:38 | 1 | 2024-07-13 11:57 | SomeoneElse | Hello "cybermapper" please do use meaningful changeset comments. "update" doesn't really help anyone understand what you are doing. |
| 153874903 by Neil Rickards @ 2024-07-12 23:10 | 1 | 2024-07-13 09:57 | SomeoneElse | Oops - looks like this track was part of the AONB relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9471593 . I've filled in the gap by extending https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/706206502 from the south (which isn't anything else). |
| 153742041 by coro85 @ 2024-07-09 12:09 | 1 | 2024-07-09 12:47 | SomeoneElse | Hello coro85, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!It'd be really helpful if you used more words to describe your changes, rather than just "correction". It would help other mappers understand what changes you are making.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-07-09 12:48 | SomeoneElse | Bună, coro85 și bun venit la OpenStreetMap!Ar fi foarte util dacă ați folosi mai multe cuvinte pentru a vă descrie modificările, mai degrabă decât doar „corecție”. I-ar ajuta pe alți cartografi să înțeleagă ce schimbări faceți.Salutări,Andy | |
| 3 | 2024-07-09 13:31 | coro85 ♦2 | Hello Andy! This is a bit new to me. True I should have done more for descriptions. Will do better going forward :) ! I did a lot of adjustments especially around tram lines - positioning, crossing with roads and pedestrian crossings. Thanks! | |
| 4 | 2024-07-09 14:01 | SomeoneElse | Great stuff - thanks! | |
| 153609627 by idkwhatname2use @ 2024-07-06 03:22 | 1 | 2024-07-07 18:30 | CurlingMan13 ♦2,044 | Hello,This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were ... |
| 2 | 2024-07-08 21:35 | SomeoneElse | Hello idkwhatname2use,What licence were the "usgs maps" you used here released under. The date will be important here - see https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/are-usgs-topographic-maps-copyrighted .Whether these features can legally be in OSM is of course a separate issue to whether they shoul... | |
| 153719306 by idkwhatname2use @ 2024-07-08 20:04 | 1 | 2024-07-08 21:31 | SomeoneElse | See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16403 . |
| 152907146 by MKBE_ @ 2024-06-19 17:28 | 1 | 2024-06-29 14:47 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | Why did you delete all the information on some roads? |
| 2 | 2024-06-29 22:58 | MKBE_2 Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 3 | 2024-06-29 23:43 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | I fail to see how deleting all correct information on multiple ways is relevant to anything | |
| 4 | 2024-07-08 20:09 | SomeoneElse | Hello MKBE_ and MKBE_2,Can you explain what "it was for busmiles.uk" means? Is that an app or website that you are updating OSM for?Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. | |
| 152617951 by DotK @ 2024-06-13 07:14 | 1 | 2024-07-08 17:02 | SomeoneElse | Dear user DotK, please use changeset comments that describe, to another human being, in natural language, what your edit is about. The "#hotosm-project-16660;#wnah;#mapnigeria;#esc2023;#Map4Climate" blurb you're currently putting in there is worthless to other OpenStreetMap community ... |
| 153327412 by yhic4uw @ 2024-06-29 11:07 | 1 | 2024-07-08 14:36 | SomeoneElse | What source did you use for this edit? It surely wasn't just "Bing Maps Aerial", which your changeset tags suggest. |
| 2 | 2024-07-08 14:49 | yhic4uw ♦62 | I didn't add bing maps aerial as a source, it was probably done by osm web editor automatically. I just changed the place type tag since the old one appeared to be discouraged in the wiki. Do you mean the data source for the place itself? It's better to ask changeset #1 author, I didn'... | |
| 3 | 2024-07-08 15:17 | SomeoneElse | You must not perform tagfiddling like this without following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct .leisure=indoor_play is a widely used documented tag https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=indoor_play#overview and is widely supported by external projects htt... | |
| 153607118 by Barroszt @ 2024-07-05 23:05 Active block | 1 | 2024-07-06 15:31 | NieWnen ♦1,056 | Psujesz adresy....Lepiej nie zmieniać jak masz takie zmiany robić! |
| 2 | 2024-07-06 15:36 | NieWnen ♦1,056 | Nawet nie patrzysz co jest w innych tagach... | |
| 3 | 2024-07-06 15:37 | NieWnen ♦1,056 | I robisz literówki w nazwach ulic. | |
| 4 | 2024-07-08 14:28 | Barroszt Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 5 | 2024-07-08 14:29 | Barroszt Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 6 | 2024-07-08 15:04 | SomeoneElse | Hello Barroszt,To be clear (as noted at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16391 ) part of the problem is that people think that you are changing some things and missing others.Perhaps avoid doing large-scale "mechanical" edits for a while and survey new stuff?Best Regards,A... | |
| 7 | 2024-07-08 18:32 | NieWnen ♦1,056 | @Barroszt twój komentarz jest nie na temat.Nie pisałem tu nic o samym dodawaniu imienia do ulicy, niemniej ucinasz bardzo istotny fragment jakim jest:"Należy upewnić się, czy aby na pewno dodajemy właściwe imię"i nie przekonasz mnie, że się upewniasz patrząc na... | |
| 8 | 2024-07-08 18:33 | NieWnen ♦1,056 | *nie przedyskutowałeś | |
| 151942965 by Meead Saberi @ 2024-05-28 12:46 | 1 | 2024-07-08 11:08 | SomeoneElse | How do you know the data that you added here is correct? Did you survey it to check? |
| 2 | 2024-07-08 11:34 | Meead Saberi ♦3 | Yes, we surveyed the area and have collected street level imagery across the IIT Delhi campus. You can view the images here:https://map.footpath.ai/#center=16.13/28.54256/77.198197 |