Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12018-07-14 23:52:56 UTCralley Hi Marvin, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. Just a couple of pointers:
- The addr:city key just has the city not city and country (also New Zealand has been misspelled in this one).
- Similarly addr:street just holds the street name, suburb can go in addr:suburb
- Where there is an exi...
22018-07-15 05:32:25 UTCMarvin Wu Dear Ralley,

First, I want to thank you for your detailed comments - much appreciate. I will follow your suggestions and keep editing the OSM.

I am a researcher working for the University of Auckland. I have a New Zealand church database which include all existing churches in the country. I h...
32018-07-15 05:32:56 UTCMarvin Wu By the way, I will review the churches I added yesterday. I will correct them according to your suggestions.

12018-07-13 09:38:39 UTCralley Thanks for picking up that error and fixing it. It looks like the changeset that introduced the problem (59196634) also changed the name from Puhinui Road to Tom Pearce Drive that also seems to be wrong.
22018-07-15 20:12:53 UTCDave Leaver Good catch, yeah Tom Pearce ends at the roundabout
12018-07-02 19:02:28 UTCpitscheplatsch Hi MICUGR, welcome to OSM.

May I know the reason behind deleting several mapped service ways? Thanks.

22018-07-02 20:42:52 UTCMICUGR The reason for removal of several service ways is because they are on private residential properties and do not allow any public access/services, misleading users of OSM.

The inclusion of the new service ways/foot paths/areas is public access and new services added to the community by local counc...
32018-07-07 01:07:07 UTCralley MICUGR: the correct way to handle private access like this is through the access tags, not by deleting elements.
42018-07-07 02:14:07 UTCMICUGR Thank you ralley for identifying OSM features such as elements and tags. A simple tag update is incorrect for this change set, refer to the OSM wiki on map editing. OSM realise on local knowledge of services and features to be accurate and physically represented. Additionally; if you are disputing t...
52018-07-07 05:55:30 UTCpitscheplatsch @MICUGR: as already mentioned by ralley, "the correct way to handle private access like this is through the access tags, not by deleting elements"!

62018-07-07 06:31:00 UTCMICUGR Thank you for quoting the reference which proves my point for the change. Private access (driveway) elements and tags are to be used to indicate access to a property only (ie from the street).

Once you have reached the properties address, which is legally marked at a letterbox for posted mail, yo...
72018-07-07 12:33:44 UTCNakaner-repair This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60488145 where the changeset comment is: Revert changeset 60334176. If a way is not accessible to the public, add the access=private tag and do not delete the way.
82018-07-07 12:35:26 UTCNakaner Hi MICUGR,

I have reverte all your deletions. As other users have already pointed out, deleting private ways is not correct. Please add the tag access=private instead. Any proper application will interprete this tag and exclude these ways from routing. If they don't use the tag and still route ov...
92018-07-08 02:45:29 UTCMICUGR Great to see remedial action taking place without consideration of the subject in question. Just to let you know I have a response from the developer about drive ways and private property. Firstly; the app developer is not impressed that you insulting them, they switched from Google to OSM because o...
12018-07-04 21:34:58 UTCralley This change seems to have introduced duplicate ways.
22018-07-09 15:46:56 UTCHLOSM Hello Ralley,

I looked over the changeset and corrected the duplicate way that you mentioned in your comment. Sorry about the issue, I will be more careful in the future when making changes to the existing data. Please feel free to review other changes and provide feedback on any improvements we...
12018-06-24 06:01:12 UTCralley Something has gone a bit wrong in your edit - it's now tagged as a bridge. Also I think foot=yes should be removed
12018-06-18 20:09:56 UTCralley The residential road you added seems to be a duplicate of the existing way #7633408 (Mount Carmel Place)
12018-06-16 10:35:32 UTCralley Description is wrong, this was actually Wairoa rural not just Bartlets
12018-05-20 02:35:39 UTCralley Actually Hamilton-Rototuna - JOSM cancel on an upload does not seem to work!
12018-05-18 05:13:36 UTCralley Actually Ngarua
12018-05-10 19:48:10 UTCralley Ironic I misspelled the changeset description
12018-04-30 00:42:02 UTCralley Hi, your edit of Way 115609854 looks to have wrongly placed a node in Hanlon Crescent.
22018-04-30 04:53:17 UTCalspace Thanks for pointing that out, moving map with mouse while in edit mode, bad habit :) corrected now!
32018-04-30 04:54:11 UTCralley No worries, thanks for the fix.
12018-04-18 19:34:46 UTCralley This looks (compared to LINZ Topo maps, available as a background in the iD editor) to be in the wrong place. There is an older peak for Mount Nicholas to the NE that looks to be in more correct location (but has no elevation). Additionally Mount should be spelled out instead of abbreviated. Also...
22018-04-29 20:11:30 UTCralley No reply so I deleted duplicate and updated original peak with elevation
12018-04-13 03:01:37 UTCLeigh Hmmm - looks like I've been tagging my cycle paths incorrectly :-)

There's a few that probably need updating ( not all mine, but I'll update them over the coming weeks.

Thanks for the fix.

22018-04-16 19:11:19 UTCralley This actually seems wrong to me - it should also be tagged cycle=yes. As it stands it is now a walking only path.
32018-04-17 00:37:29 UTCLeigh Agree - I'd missed that as it's implies bicycle=yes by default in iD editor - I've made it explicit.
42018-04-17 00:38:25 UTCralley Sounds good, cheers.
12018-04-15 02:27:10 UTCralley Why have you changed the morotcross raceways to be tagged as motorways?

Also as previously requested can you please use meaningful changeset comments as per
12018-04-15 00:52:53 UTCralley Actually Matarau
12018-03-20 05:43:08 UTClcmortensen Reverted by changeset 57339094 - Road does not exist.
22018-03-20 23:44:46 UTCralley Have you reported this user to the DWG? They seem to be consistently adding changes Id'd as vandalism under useless commit messages and don't respond to communication.
12018-03-07 04:36:43 UTCralley Can you please use proper comments on your changesets - 'S' is not descriptive.

This change appears wrong - you have roads short cutting around the roundabout and going through houses.
12018-03-05 23:48:13 UTCralley I see you've changed the skatepark to be tagged as a playground. As per I believe the previous leisure=pitch was correct
12018-03-04 17:31:55 UTCralley Accidentally committed via import account, should have been under account 'ralley'
12018-02-27 19:35:26 UTCralley Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits, they look good to me.

You could look at deleting the previous address node for 18 March Place now that you have put the address on the building. Also you could connect the parking lot to March Place with a service way.

To follow the NZ OSM communi...
12018-01-30 18:21:47 UTCralley Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. It looks like the paths you added need a bit of clean up:
1) Some of them appear to be service roads and not paths
2) They are crossing buildings
3) Not connected to the roads
22018-02-17 06:57:28 UTCkiwirick87 they are mostly paths/walking space, but are also used by cars now and again
32018-02-17 07:00:11 UTCralley If they are used by cars then they shouldn't be tagged as paths - they are probably service roads. They definitely should not intersect building and need to be joined to the adjacent roads
12018-02-13 23:49:02 UTCralley Reviewed against LINZ and ESRI imagery and looks good
12018-02-07 09:03:00 UTCConstable hi there, are you sure that playground is the right tag for this area?
Here someone said it was supposed to be a rest area, not a kids play restricted area
Is it actually a playground for kids?
22018-02-08 17:54:16 UTCralley I can confirm there is a playground here, visited in 2017.
32018-02-09 08:02:48 UTCConstable hi there, thanks for the reply. Well, if you've been there few months ago maybe we can give this area a little update. Looking at the aerial imagery it seems like the playground/park area extends far west, am I correct? are there public toilet or some other useful things?
42018-02-26 15:42:00 UTCEmmaJG Hi, I've been away but can confirm there is definitely a playground. I had just visited Ohakune before I made the update.
52018-02-26 16:05:14 UTCConstable hi, thanks for your reply. If you have a look at the aerial imagery you'll see that the playground shape (this one ) doesn't really line up with a playground area. It looks to me like the park/playground extends west along the Mangateitei Stream, am I wron...
12018-01-30 18:15:08 UTCralley These paths look like they should be connected to the nearby roads - as they stand they cannot be used for routing.
22018-01-31 00:50:12 UTCsteakunderscore Thanks @ralley. I wasn't sure if I should do as you say. I didn't want to go and add _all_ the foot paths in the area as that would take a lot of time.
32018-01-31 00:52:51 UTCralley No additional paths needed, just move the end nodes of the existing paths so they are also part of the roads.
42018-01-31 00:57:53 UTCsteakunderscore Thanks. Done in changeset/55913650
12018-01-28 02:07:28 UTCralley Accidentally imported using my main OSM account, meant to import as linz_robA
12018-01-28 02:07:18 UTCralley Accidentally imported using my main OSM account, meant to import as linz_robA
12018-01-28 02:07:05 UTCralley Accidentally imported using my main OSM account, meant to import as linz_robA
12018-01-28 02:06:50 UTCralley Accidentally imported using my main OSM account, meant to import as linz_robA
12017-12-06 18:55:29 UTCralley Bridges tagged according to following this discussion:!topic/nzopengis/TLcY6KL-tFE
12017-12-05 18:56:38 UTCralley Should this be tagged "covered=yes" ? (as per
22017-12-06 13:31:31 UTCwilmaed I removed surface=grass and added covered=yes.

What about
location=underground ?

32017-12-06 17:30:26 UTCralley I'm definitely no tagging expert but I wouldn't of thought they are needed and there don't seem to be any other examples using that combination of tags.

Seems strange that this is being rendered to look like it is above ground though. Is it to try and not render it that layer was changed to -5...
12017-12-05 10:03:54 UTCralley Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits. As previously discussed there are some issues with your changesets in this area. Will yoube able to fix up the issues? (Nodes shared between unrelated ways; overlapped buildings with strange shapes; dubious council reserve; Cambrai park has a building...
12017-12-04 23:48:16 UTCralley Are you sure this is a residential road? It looks to be a driveway to me.
12017-12-04 23:43:54 UTCralley Is this really a park? from the ESRI aerial imagery it looks to be a household back yard.
22017-12-06 19:20:46 UTCMonsv Apologies, the park was a test (learning how to use the map) and thought it was unsaved as it didn't show on main. I've removed it.

The P (parking) is private property, Buddhist Temple for members only (I've asked), no public access, big yellow gate
12017-12-03 23:56:09 UTCralley Are you sure about a park being here? The ESRI photo imagery shows residential buildings
12017-10-09 18:34:43 UTCralley Inadvertently combined 2 changesets in JOSM, this also incorporates changes to reflect the extension of Herdman Street, Waterview which is under construction.
12017-09-27 16:49:21 UTCralley Welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits. Strange but correct that the road is Green Lane while the suburb is Greenlane. Well spotted.
12017-09-27 16:42:51 UTCralley Welcome to OSM and thanks for the correction. Looks fine to me.
12017-09-27 16:37:21 UTCralley Hi, thanks for adding the walkway but I don't think this should be tagged as footway=crossing and crossing=zebra (see
12017-09-21 23:59:22 UTCralley My reading of XXX and is that double bridging is actually the correct way to tag. Is my interpretation wrong? OSMose is also flagging this as wrong:
22017-09-22 00:00:20 UTCralley Whoops XXX should have been above.
12017-09-08 01:02:20 UTCralley Correct way to handle a private road would be to add access=private as per
22017-09-08 01:06:45 UTCralley Further looking at this it seems to be a partial duplicate of an existing Abattoir Lane (zoom right in and you can see both). Needs to be cleaned up
12017-08-11 21:19:20 UTCralley Changeset description is wrong - this was scrub not Forest
12017-08-08 19:38:07 UTCralley Comment should have been "Remove tags from outer way of multiploygon"
12017-07-27 13:42:29 UTCwoodpeck Has this import been discussed / documented somewhere?
22017-07-27 17:08:30 UTCViriatoLusitano
32017-07-27 18:27:28 UTCralley LINZ imports were originally discussed staring 17/08/12 on the imports list. The imports have been going on intermittently since this time as tracked through
12017-07-23 07:47:00 UTCralley Arggh, thought I'd re-connected JOSM with my interactive account. This was not an import.
12017-07-07 11:52:19 UTCNakaner Hi ralley,

I recently read about an address import from LINZ but not about an import of rivers. Could you please point me to the discussion of that import and its documentation on the OSM wiki?

The Import Guidelines ( require you to use a d...
22017-07-08 03:58:36 UTCralley Michael, LINZ importing is covered at There is nothing specific to river imports there though. I was not aware of the need for a dedicated account for import, will try and clear that up with the people overseeing the LINZ import.
Cheers, Rob.
ralley has contributed to 45 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 81 comment(s)