| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 134237168 by Cebderby @ 2023-03-28 21:25 | 1 | 2025-05-28 21:02 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,630 | Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4717876 ? |
| 2 | 2025-05-28 22:23 | Cebderby | It's a marginal case. Compared to how it was, it was made dual and feels like it. The river bridge has old and new halves with a physical division, and the W arm of the T junction has a more-than-minimal island and about a 13m spacing between E and W bound. So this section is divided. Beyon... | |
| 165892471 by Cebderby @ 2025-05-06 13:32 | 1 | 2025-05-06 19:57 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Thanks for doing this! Tidying up Trafalgar Square had been on my TODO list for about 6 years, but as it's somewhere I'd rather avoid on a run it's never quite floated to the top. |
| 132598262 by Cebderby @ 2023-02-15 19:37 | 1 | 2025-05-06 14:08 | -karlos- ♦21 | Way 1146073384 is a building:part but not a closed way! 3 nodes in a line and a small bit in the south.It is a part of way Way: 1146073382 |
| 2 | 2025-05-06 14:16 | Cebderby | Good spot, thanks. Tidied up in ch. 165894556 | |
| 105166084 by Cebderby @ 2021-05-23 13:40 | 1 | 2025-03-10 05:00 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,630 | Thanks for your mapping!I am now using Loughborough data for some processing/background and I wanted to thank mappers that made this possible by adding various map data.So thanks for this edit |
| 58909814 by Cebderby @ 2018-05-12 19:15 | 1 | 2024-12-06 20:22 | 小智智 ♦53 | Paths inside train stations shouldn't be tagged with access=destinationSuch usage will prevent OpenTripPlanner to use it on a through journey after alighting the train at Derby as the station is not the destination, just a place to change trains. |
| 140010422 by Cebderby @ 2023-08-17 12:23 | 1 | 2024-03-16 00:23 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,630 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/933658954/history has construction = construction that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)What construction=construction means? What you wanted to express by using this tag? |
| 2 | 2024-03-16 09:21 | Cebderby | This is merely more of the existing tagging along the HS2 route which seeks to differentiate between the land which will become railway (landuse=construction,construction=railway) and that which is currently construction temporarily and is presumed destined to be returned to be useful farmland (assu... | |
| 148068109 by Cebderby @ 2024-02-29 19:39 | 1 | 2024-03-06 16:47 | pboscherini Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. |
| 2 | 2024-03-06 21:17 | Cebderby | AI output will not be replied to. If you have something coherent you want to say, write it yourself. Italian is fine, we can translate it.All'output dell'AI non verrà data risposta. Se hai qualcosa di coerente che vuoi dire, scrivilo tu stesso. L'italiano va bene, possiamo ... | |
| 3 | 2024-03-07 11:00 | pboscherini Active block | Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option. | |
| 66131266 by Cebderby @ 2019-01-08 15:07 | 1 | 2024-02-22 07:51 | BCNorwich ♦4,849 | Hi, The areas of Way: 661461356, Way: 661461347, Way: 661461352, and Way: 661461358 look strange shapes. In two of them, the outlines self-intersect. I can't remedy the self-intersection not knowing what the shape should be.Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | 2024-02-22 09:39 | Cebderby | Hi Bernard, Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like there was an update to the area including realignment to Cadastral-aligned-Bing yesterday in https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=147708927 which moved all except 8 nodes of the 3d shape. So I've selectively reverted that shift for this b... | |
| 146981119 by Cebderby @ 2024-02-02 11:27 | 1 | 2024-02-02 11:35 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Thanks! |
| 146216879 by Cebderby @ 2024-01-13 14:47 | 1 | 2024-01-13 23:09 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Thanks. I suspect that @maxfranks and @SophiaD123 may be the same vandal, so they'll probably be back again.https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15563 |
| 145835062 by Cebderby @ 2024-01-03 11:22 | 1 | 2024-01-03 12:19 | archie ♦1,301 | Hej, a lot of thanks for your corrections!! Did you contact the new user and pointed out the problem for them? |
| 2 | 2024-01-03 13:21 | Cebderby | Hi archie,Thanks, I hadn't done so (was assuming they would be Swedish but I see their changeset comments are all English and maybe editing from England too), so have commented at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145832552Happy mapping,Cebderby (Clive) | |
| 3 | 2024-01-03 13:37 | archie ♦1,301 | Thank you very much, Clive! More of these edits of yours! Greatly appreciated! | |
| 145716298 by Cebderby @ 2023-12-30 23:23 | 1 | 2023-12-30 23:27 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Thanks for spotting and fixing that, that was rather careless of me. |
| 2 | 2023-12-30 23:59 | Cebderby | Yes, galaxytransitUK tried reversing a couple of ways first, before more harmful changes...Anyway, I went back through the change list and rechecked, finished off repairing the ones we were waiting for replies on (their 1st edit and the Fastrack barrier+bridge area, also one other trashed turn res... | |
| 131399099 by Cebderby @ 2023-01-17 22:59 | 1 | 2023-10-23 19:22 | RedAuburn ♦221 | are there any tools you used to do this? it's amazing! |
| 2 | 2023-10-23 20:15 | Cebderby | Thanks. Had done some sliced buildings before and plenty of other (not-so-)simple 3d buildings in OSM. No purpose made tools for making OSM 3d buildings, but I used a 3d CAD program 'OpenSCAD' (which uses a 'programmed geometry' approach rather than a more conventional drawing ... | |
| 138067914 by Cebderby @ 2023-07-03 14:37 | 1 | 2023-07-08 12:05 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | HiAs the mapper who originally mapped Markfield I am baffled where you dug up https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1186871119 from as it had ceased to exist before I left Markfield in 2011.It was always a useful cut through to the village and was well used bt George customers.There was a lif... |
| 2 | 2023-07-09 11:15 | Cebderby | Hi Phil,There's a footpath-sized gap between the property boundaries on the Cadastral layer, but I've deleted this (non) way now, thanks. Cebderby (Clive) | |
| 3 | 2023-07-10 15:18 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Thank youPhil | |
| 138075192 by Cebderby @ 2023-07-03 18:07 | 1 | 2023-07-04 11:48 | JezCrow ♦150 | Thank you for your improvements to this junction. I recently queried a tagging change from junction=roundabout to junction=circular by a TomTom editor, but I don't understand their reply. As an experienced mapper, perhaps you can shed some light on it? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changese... |
| 2 | 2023-07-04 12:01 | Cebderby | Hi Jez,Thanks for your message. The widespread use of junction=circular seems to be fairly recent, or maybe the OSM wiki definition has shifted (as they do) to make them much more common.If you compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Dcircularand https://wiki.openstreetm... | |
| 132841658 by Cebderby @ 2023-02-21 15:37 | 1 | 2023-02-21 19:33 | Dave Venables ♦164 | Thanks for tidying; I do find some of the "attractions" added via MAPS.ME suspicious (and amusing sometimes) and guess that they were probably only given that description as it is early in the alphabet. They do generally get removed after the editing prompted by them is completed (generall... |
| 132089131 by Cebderby @ 2023-02-04 20:13 | 1 | 2023-02-08 21:52 | Ryan Underwood _01 ♦10 | Don't appreciate being called a bad user. Don't make assumptions. The reinstatement of the roads over the new pedestrian area was a mistake. Unfortunately the bus routing is restricting the road layout from being properly mapped. There is now a crescent shaped road coming out of Birchfield... |
| 2 | 2023-02-08 22:08 | Cebderby | For clarity, the 5 changesets reverted were all from the user "Birmingham City Mission", who in 90 changesets managed only to correctly move one bus stop node. All the other edits were test saves of fiction, false information added and good tags stripped out, destruction of buildings and ... | |
| 3 | 2023-02-08 22:29 | Cebderby | Ryan, looks like https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=132030427included where you were working and will show you the sort of thing that was going on; they put the whole pedestrian area as building=house, deleted the way you had last edited (which my reversion un-deleted), deleted a pedestrian... | |
| 4 | 2023-02-08 22:32 | Ryan Underwood _01 ♦10 | Ah, apologies for the knee-jerk reaction. It seems that user is spamming with the notes. Some sort of attempt at SEO, I suppose? Very odd. | |
| 131399808 by Cebderby @ 2023-01-17 23:48 | 1 | 2023-01-26 11:32 | RedAuburn ♦221 | this is incredible work, thank you so much! |
| 130792725 by Cebderby @ 2023-01-02 15:35 | 1 | 2023-01-10 15:52 | RedAuburn ♦221 | thank you for this! |
| 130213404 by Cebderby @ 2022-12-18 13:57 | 1 | 2022-12-19 17:48 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | I note you've deleted a few ref:GB:usrn tags, however those tags were only added to the same extents of roads as in OS Open USRN. I mapped the sections with USRNs as highway=residential and those without as highway=service as there is likely to be a difference in whether the local highway autho... |
| 2 | 2022-12-19 18:22 | Cebderby | Hi. Didn't intend to delete anything, but I don't have visibility of the OS Open USRN data you refer to. Generally (but not always, eg for patches of council housing) the Cadastral parcels data available in JOSM is clear which ways are part of the 'public' highway eg residentia... | |
| 3 | 2022-12-19 19:06 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Just to clarify, I only had an issue with the (inadvertent) deletion of a USRN, the rest was context for how I'd used the data.I produce OpenUSRN extracts by exporting them from QGIS as GeoJSON files which I can then load into JOSM. It's a simplified geometry, so it has to be used alon... | |
| 4 | 2022-12-19 19:47 | Cebderby | I've carefully reviewed the changeset changes at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=130213404and can find no occurrence of the removal of USRN data from any residential road. A section of road has been made service where Cadastral data indicates it should be, and the USRN was removed ... | |
| 5 | 2022-12-19 20:55 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | You removed the USRN from Sword Close ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1026019436 ) and changed it to service, which I have restored. I have no other issue with your edit and had no intention of making any other changes.I will only apply a USRN as far as it is verifiable, which may involve sp... | |
| 119527796 by Cebderby @ 2022-04-10 09:12 | 1 | 2022-05-11 10:28 | jpennycook ♦326 | Hello.When you're next in Spencers Wood, could you have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9296730065/history and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120831749 please? I'm surprised that the the kerbs and bollards have been removed and the Croft Road reverted to oneway.\... |
| 86372270 by Cebderby @ 2020-06-08 21:17 | 1 | 2022-03-14 03:32 | Lee Carré ♦665 | http://www.osm.org/way/699441649 was originally aeroway=apron (and retagged (bizarrely) to landuse=meadow in http://www.osm.org/changeset/71566498 ). Would seem wise to restore (undelete) it. |
| 2 | 2022-03-14 10:26 | Cebderby | I don't understand. The area was covered with grass until the new building and access roads were added and now is not. Feel free to improve the map. | |
| 41836885 by Cebderby @ 2016-08-31 21:48 | 1 | 2022-01-17 06:02 | Lee Carré ♦665 | Couldn't have modified the existing elements, instead of deleting & re-adding?http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Keep_the_history |
| 86602648 by Cebderby @ 2020-06-13 15:38 | 1 | 2021-07-05 09:15 | sdoerr ♦71 | Several new roads at brownfield site now, according to OS Open USRN |
| 100955027 by Cebderby @ 2021-03-13 14:14 | 1 | 2021-03-14 07:29 | ◪ Jarv ♦240 | I see you have changed the bridleway beside the new Bypass to a cycleway. I will admit it is a bit odd that they designated and signed it as a bridleway instead of of a shared foot/cycle way. but surely highway=bridleway is more correct that highway=cycleway |
| 2 | 2021-03-14 09:54 | Cebderby | You have commented on the wrong changeset. You want 98516784 | |
| 3 | 2021-03-14 13:57 | ◪ Jarv ♦240 | Sorry, my bad. | |
| 89740728 by Cebderby @ 2020-08-21 10:49 | 1 | 2020-08-21 23:36 | JodaStephen ♦59 | FYI, those roads are not surface ways. They are ramps up and down to the parking entrances at the north end, and these two ways have retaining walls below ground level of increasing height. Now, as it happens, the service road for deliveries is at layer 1, so removing layer=-1 has no effect, but I d... |
| 2 | 2020-08-22 10:41 | Cebderby | 'As it happens' doesn't enter into it. If there were ways at ground level that these pass under, they would be layer -1. It is specifically *because* there is nothing - either ways or any surface at this level - over these ways aside from the layer=1 service ramp, that means that la... | |
| 78936718 by Cebderby @ 2019-12-27 17:49 | 1 | 2019-12-28 16:26 | jpennycook ♦326 | Cebderby has fixed this in at least a couple of recent changesets |
| 2 | 2019-12-28 16:27 | jpennycook ♦326 | Sorry - that comment was meant for the note, not the changeset! | |
| 71060267 by Cebderby @ 2019-06-08 22:17 | 1 | 2019-07-02 16:58 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | (just in case you haven't seen it already) see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1832185 |
| 2 | 2019-07-10 16:38 | Cebderby | D'oh! thanks. Looks like I dropped a node to remove kink in the old roman road line and managed to shorten the 2 halves of B road, fixed now. | |
| 3 | 2019-07-10 19:25 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Thanks. | |
| 63995126 by Cebderby @ 2018-10-30 00:09 | 1 | 2019-03-28 19:41 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Not sure I understand "construction=rail" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8864026 - did that perhaps get copied over from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/639226618 or a constituent way somehow?Cheers,AndyPS: I'd probably have the Hilton Hotel Lane as unclassified rat... |
| 2 | 2019-03-28 20:55 | Cebderby | Hi Andy,Looks like that construction=rail got set way back at changeset 50120352 when the construction area got its name and operator set. Guess as it's a rail freight interchange the assumption was it would be landuse=rail after construction, but that's not right, there'll just be... | |
| 3 | 2019-03-29 11:10 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Thanks for that - that explains a lot. | |
| 51577025 by Cebderby @ 2017-08-30 12:37 | 1 | 2018-09-30 12:33 | giggls ♦104 | Hello,aerialway opened yesterday:https://www.matterhornparadise.ch/de/winter/ausflugsziele-am-berg/3s-bahnWill you update the tagging? |
| 2 | 2018-09-30 19:50 | Cebderby | Thanks for the info, done in changeset 63074143 - fixme remain for exact pylon positions, end station shapes etc | |
| 59849750 by Cebderby @ 2018-06-14 16:07 | 1 | 2018-06-21 12:34 | DaveF ♦1,563 | HiDo you know where NCN4 has been rerouted? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191696719#map=18/51.59132/-3.78039&layers=C |
| 2 | 2018-06-21 15:36 | Cebderby | Hi Dave,Heading E after the A4241 double river bridge / roundabout, arriving at the footbridge with the big cycle ramps, the route 4 seemed to be signed to continue along the A4241 Harbour Way - on the S side at this point. (I crossed to take the Wales Coast Path foot route / old? 4 route around ... | |
| 49860919 by Cebderby @ 2017-06-27 12:35 | 1 | 2017-06-27 14:44 | Derby45 ♦9 | Ah, I wondered why the sports club wasn't showing properly. Thank you. |
| 49318284 by Cebderby @ 2017-06-06 20:34 | 1 | 2017-06-07 12:35 | tms13 ♦77 | Please use tag "operator" to indicate the company occupying a building. And correct "Saintsbury's"! Thanks. |
| 2 | 2017-06-08 03:05 | Cebderby | The change I made was to correct the text "Saintsbury's", please feel free to improve the map further. | |
| 49318584 by Cebderby @ 2017-06-06 20:47 | 1 | 2017-06-06 21:59 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Should https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/438558805 really be primary_link? Can't remember seeing a _link used for an at-grade roundabout before |
| 2 | 2017-06-06 22:25 | Cebderby | Yes - was thinking of high priority road terminating at lower, this is the other way around - will go with primary, thanks. | |
| 49075826 by Cebderby @ 2017-05-29 14:46 | 1 | 2017-05-30 11:07 | Vincent de Phily ♦112 | What's the idea behind these changes ? I don't understand why it'd be necessary to only connect the roads to the roundabout and not to each other. My best guess is some kind of "mapping for the GPS navigation announcement" ?There are a lot of roundabouts like this with a... |
| 2 | 2017-05-30 17:10 | Cebderby | Hi Vincent,It's considered best practice for roundabouts, yes mostly for routing, so that 'taking the first exit' rather than 'turning left' is used. There are nearly no roundabouts where this is not done, even when geometrically awkward - only exception is where a '... | |
| 47007752 by Cebderby @ 2017-03-20 10:14 | 1 | 2017-03-20 17:55 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | HI, I am not convinced there is a legal no-U turn restriction here. I have never seen any signage and if there was one, how would I get into Knighton Junction Lane or the New Road Inn?However I have spotted that Welford Road is incorrectly mapped as a single carriageway so I will fix that.Cheers... |
| 2 | 2017-03-20 18:36 | Cebderby | Hi, If turning right from the southbound Welford Rd into Knighton Jnct Ln or the pub is ok then this new turn restriction can't remain. The specific routing problem was in (expecting to) turn right from Victoria Park Rd to northbound Welford Rd - OsmAnd app's router gives left turn then U... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-20 21:45 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | Hi, I have looked at this on OSMand and it has got a very serious routing issue. Both OSRM and mapzen work perfectly here.Maybe it should be reported to OSMand? | |
| 4 | 2017-03-20 22:04 | Cebderby | I suspect it is over-penalising a route from a secondary to a primary road via a minor way, even though it seems short and obvious. Trying with 'fuel efficient' route option (ie. short route) OsmAnd gets the right turn, it's only the 'fastest' route with the problem. For n... | |
| 5 | 2017-03-20 22:36 | trigpoint ♦2,372 | I agree the cross ways should be secondary, and I would consider Putney Road/Commercial Square to be tertiary. But a router should cope with the mapping as is, classifications are an indication of importance rather than speed, especially when they are tagged as 30 mph.I am working through Mapill... | |
| 40261856 by Cebderby @ 2016-06-24 14:08 | 1 | 2016-06-25 01:54 | dixilick ♦1 | Suggest that this access to allotments be changed to alley as vehicles use this to access rear of houses |
| 32636831 by Cebderby @ 2015-07-14 19:58 | 1 | 2015-07-20 12:59 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Removing the driveway tag from http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41645258/history smacks a bit of "tagging for the renderer". Just because the "standard" map makes a complete horlicks of anything outside a town centre isn't a good reason to mistag things for it :) |
| 2 | 2015-07-20 14:37 | Cebderby | For me, it's not (just) an access to a private property or business, and it's certainly not private as driveways often are. It may be a dead end for car drivers, but for walkers its a significant through route connecting to the footpath beyond - in the absence of service=driveway_and_foot... | |
| 3 | 2015-07-21 09:37 | SomeoneElse ♦13,362 | Sounds like a similar issue to the one that I raised last year https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/765 .I've pretty much given up on the "standard" style being useful for anything that I'd want to use it for. See also the examples here https://lists.open... | |
| 29762856 by Cebderby @ 2015-03-26 20:24 | 1 | 2015-03-27 15:51 | SK53 ♦864 | Appears to relate to this closure notice: http://derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/rights_of_way/TempClosures/TC2129.pdf & https://derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/countryside/access/rights_of_way/path_closure_register/search_the_register/details.asp?AppID=4807&men_1975=Swarkestone |