| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60040229 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-06-27 11:17:03 UTC | mueschel | Hi,could you explain the meaning of "foot:closed = permissive"? If access by foot is not permitted, the tag is "foot=no".Jan |
| 2 | 2018-06-27 14:49:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jan, this was an attempt to retain the permissive value for foot whilst also indicating that the path was closed (access=no). This seemed better than simply removing the foot tag. If you can find a better way to show that pedestrian access is permissive but currently not allowed I would be please... | |
| 3 | 2018-06-30 16:48:30 UTC | mueschel | For temporary closed ways, we have the "temporary:" prefix -> temporary:access = no.You can also just add a note explaining what the access rules will be after reconstruction. | |
| 57570365 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-03-27 16:23:03 UTC | gurglypipe | Please add a description to your changesets, so that other people can quickly see a summary of what’s changed. Thanks! |
| 2 | 2018-03-27 16:30:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Trivial changeset. Moved it nearer the junction. | |
| 41073483 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-03-26 17:49:22 UTC | Borbus | I'm not sure about this change. I can see that it looks redundant having the name on the route and the ways, but I would argue that locally the way itself is known as Marriot's Way, rather than it being a route comprised of many anonymous ways. There is still a route called Marriot's way which somet... |
| 2 | 2018-03-26 23:37:49 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I didn't quite understand your argument, but assume you are suggesting that a series of ways that form a part of the Marriot's Way route are also themselves known as Marriot's Way locally. If this is what you mean, then the loc_name field would be the most appropriate one to use to name the way... | |
| 57498730 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-03-25 14:59:03 UTC | lakedistrict | Hi Mike, thanks for your edits around here. I guess you were walking (part of) the Dales Way? Did you see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38555464 is accessible yet or if it is still closed? Thanks |
| 2 | 2018-03-25 15:20:15 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, yes, I was walking what might be considered the first part of the Dales Way - Bowness to Burneside, then caught the train back. Very enjoyable in Sunday's snow! I didn't see whether way 38555464 was open or closed - I note that the way has access=no and foot=designated, which are contradictory f... | |
| 3 | 2018-03-25 15:42:08 UTC | lakedistrict | No worries, I'm local so I'll check it out sometime soon. | |
| 56159770 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-02-20 01:23:08 UTC | JayTurnr | I assume Naptan import data is important? |
| 2 | 2018-02-20 07:41:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jay, NaPTAN data is an import of public transport data from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan and should be on a node at the position of the bus stop. Not sure how the data ended up on this way.Regards,Mike | |
| 56358546 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-02-15 16:15:42 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Have the signs at the entrance to Agar Street saying no motor vehicles except for access been removed? |
| 56348412 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-02-14 12:48:28 UTC | DaveF | Please don't amend entities when you've no idea of the layout. Once again it needs pointing out to you that roundabouts do not need separate junctions. Amend your practices to suit. |
| 2 | 2018-02-14 13:25:30 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I don't understand your comment. My change was to move two junctions slightly apart to comply with the guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout which state:"Important Consideration When MappingAll ways which intersect with the junction=roundabout should be... | |
| 56308101 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-02-13 09:08:14 UTC | OffTheChart | Residents of this stretch of lane are free to drive westwards, and exit onto the main road, so it's sort of 2-way but isn't. Feel free to correct this, I've no idea how that should be set :)Plus, cyclists are permitted both ways.Cheers |
| 56230680 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-02-10 13:41:32 UTC | John-O | thanks for correcting this |
| 55924441 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-01-31 13:23:43 UTC | GinaroZ | Can't work out what you changed here? |
| 2 | 2018-01-31 13:39:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I split closed way 123192913 in two to clarify it is not an area. Must have missed the comment. | |
| 54406368 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-12-06 22:02:28 UTC | matt_twam_asi | Hi Mike,I've carried out a bit more work on these three buildings (changeset 54415729 if you want to check)- Added smoking=yes to way 544250782 from the node that was deleted in this changeset.- Merged the Andrew Lyons node into way 544250762.- changed ways 544250762 and 70007760 to buildi... |
| 2 | 2017-12-07 08:31:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Excellent, looks good to me! | |
| 51509558 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-11-02 17:46:58 UTC | SK53 | So you are also the person silently removing my bridge=footbridge tags too. Can you at the very least ask about these before changing them. |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 17:54:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Apologies for inadvertently failing to add a comment on the occasional change. If a way has highway=footway and bridge=yes then we know it is a footbridge. | |
| 3 | 2017-11-06 10:17:09 UTC | SomeoneElse | Mike,Changing "bridge=<value>" to "bridge=yes" removes descriptive information from OSM. Please don't do it. Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. | |
| 53418470 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-11-02 09:19:07 UTC | will_p | Hi Mike,I object to the change you have made here. You have changed bridge=chain to bridge=yes. How has the data been improved by this? You appear to only be stripping out information. I don't believe there is any consensus that bridges must only be tagged with bridge=yes. bridge=chain identifie... |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 09:26:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Will, the reason for doing this is that bridge=chain is not rendered as a bridge by OSM, and is not included in the list of approved values. The bridge has a note on it saying it is a chain so no information has been lost.Regards,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-11-02 13:37:22 UTC | Richard | note= tags aren't machine-readable - so in practice, moving things from a machine-readable tag to a note means that they are practically lost to all consumers.At the very least, this should have been moved to bridge:structure= rather than a note= .There is no "list of approved values&qu... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-02 13:39:46 UTC | SK53 | On the contrary information has been lost: changing a tag to a note is always information loss. You are changing tagging for the renderer, a practice which has been discouraged for many years. Instead you should a) file an issue with the rendering github repository and b) improve the wiki documentat... | |
| 5 | 2017-11-02 13:43:43 UTC | SomeoneElse | To be honest, as there's no highway or railway over it I'd add the "man_made=bridge" object (as a closed way) if possible.It'd donkey's years since I've been to the Priest House though, so my memory isn't up to it. | |
| 6 | 2017-11-02 15:56:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges. For example, there were quite a few bridge=culvert tags which on examination mostly turned out to be waterways below roads and should not have had ... | |
| 7 | 2017-11-02 17:37:33 UTC | SomeoneElse | > The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges.Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L506 | |
| 8 | 2017-11-02 17:46:02 UTC | Mike Baggaley | >Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:What you have actually done there is build your list of 'approved' values :) | |
| 9 | 2017-11-02 17:50:24 UTC | Richard | > it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridgesThat's a genuine issue, but one which would be better fixed by removing the not-actually-a-bridge values than by removing the actually-a-bridge values. ;) | |
| 10 | 2017-11-02 17:53:59 UTC | SK53 | No, he's built a list of values which he finds useful. One of the main points of OSM is to allow the description of the unusual & idiosyncratic because a rigid list of approved values inevitably cannot cope. People enforcing a set of values devalues what OSM is about. For instance you have chang... | |
| 11 | 2017-11-03 12:27:53 UTC | SomeoneElse | Yes - what SK53 has said is correct. It's probably clearer to look at some of the other examples in the same file (barriers, shops, offices). For example, depending on the application it might make sense to render or otherwise process a cycle_barrier the same as a motorcycle_barrier or it absolute... | |
| 53431171 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-11-02 10:34:47 UTC | OffTheChart | I see you've been removing names from my hard work identifying all the types of WW2 Bunkers on Jersey. Can I ask why? From previous discussion it seems you're heavily focussed on getting the database "correct", but this is spoiling the usefullness of the standard website map. I have been t... |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 11:26:04 UTC | OffTheChart | Partial apologies, if you've only touched the ones named "bunker", as you've undone less of my work than I initially thought. But I still maintain that explorers using the map would be interested to see that the unspecified bunkers are indeed bunkers, as there's no other indication on the ... | |
| 3 | 2017-11-02 16:32:37 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, moving the bunker information from the name field to the specific tag seemed to be improving the level of information, not 'undoing your work'. However, I did not realise that the standard OSM map doesn't render military=bunker. Ideally we should get this functionality added to the standard ren... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-02 18:06:42 UTC | OffTheChart | Thanks for your reply. If we can just leave things as they are for now, please, as that seems easier and best all around! Cheers | |
| 51509509 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-11-02 17:48:34 UTC | SK53 | And it is only polite to comment changesets, particularly when you are tag fiddling. |
| 50513259 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-09-19 13:25:48 UTC | GinaroZ | Hi, just to let you know the correct tag for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/386788476 is landuse=allotments :) |
| 51544076 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-08-29 19:50:19 UTC | DaveF | Why didn't you add the correct church title? |
| 2 | 2017-08-29 19:55:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Dave, I didn't know what the proper name was.Regards,Mike | |
| 51511389 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-08-28 20:56:02 UTC | ndm | The name on the board for the map is "Museum" why have you changed it? Is this some arm-chair mapping exercise? |
| 51343006 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-08-23 17:28:13 UTC | sdoerr | Should node 528921324 be leisure=pitch? |
| 2 | 2017-08-23 17:31:46 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Oops, yes. Will correct! Thanks for letting me know.Cheers,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-08-23 17:43:20 UTC | sdoerr | Glad to be of service! However, I think you have now accidentally overwritten 'sport' with 'fix typo', presumably intended as a changeset comment.Steve | |
| 4 | 2017-08-23 18:20:20 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Doh! Give me a brain. Hopefully correct now. | |
| 51149076 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-08-17 10:23:09 UTC | chillly | The name on the board above the shop front is 'Chemist'. I surveyed it and it is still so.Please don't just armchair this stuff - check first!I will revert your change. |
| 2 | 2017-08-17 10:36:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The name is not Chemist, it is P. Rowbotham Dispensing Chemist according to http://www.nhs.uk/Services/pharmacies/Overview/DefaultView.aspx?id=5007. | |
| 3 | 2017-08-17 11:07:24 UTC | chillly | The name on the shop says 'Chemist'. I know that because I have been there. You cannot use copyright sources to update the name. I will revert your change and ask the DWG to intervene if you use copyright sources in OSM again. | |
| 4 | 2017-08-17 11:09:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | You will find his name is also on the front of the shop. | |
| 5 | 2017-08-17 11:10:27 UTC | chillly | Which is why I added the name as the operator. | |
| 6 | 2017-08-17 11:19:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I suggest in the spirit of compromise the name be set to either P Rowbotham Chemist. or just P Rowbotham. The name of the business is clearly not Chemist. | |
| 7 | 2017-08-17 11:27:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I also note that the NHS Choices data is made available under the Open Government Licence - see http://www.nhs.uk/aboutNHSChoices/aboutnhschoices/how-we-perform/Pages/datasets.aspx. | |
| 8 | 2017-08-17 11:33:14 UTC | chillly | Wow, just how far are you going with this?Read the link again. DOWNLOADED files are OGL, the web page you directed me to is copyright. I doubt anyone in the NHS would care, but you were prepared to use a copyright source before you then checked to try to climb out of the hole you just dug. J... | |
| 51093590 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-08-17 10:34:51 UTC | Thomas Jarvis | Thanks for fixing this, this area has been bugging me for a while and after quite a bit of research I finally found out it is a spur of the A272, I come back to do it and someone already had! |
| 50532815 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-07-24 20:29:10 UTC | paulbiv | The wiki has access=no as a valid tag. Removing access=no needs survey evidence that access is permitted (It's BAe land). |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 21:21:48 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the other two tags removed were invalid and are the reason I edited the way. The existing foot=yes tag already says that pedestrian access is allowed. As a footway does not allow any other access by default, the access=no is not changing the access for any other transport mode, and is overridden... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-24 21:28:03 UTC | paulbiv | I'll take a look next time I'm over that way. Edge of defence related land could easily have a footpath inside the fence, and users could easily tag that as foot=yes without realising that implies public access. | |
| 4 | 2017-07-24 21:31:03 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Excellent, we'll know for certain then. Thanks. | |
| 50055007 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-07-05 13:37:11 UTC | DaveF | HiWouldn't it benefit OSM if, instead of removing semi-inaccurate tags, to update them to their correct values? |
| 2 | 2017-07-06 20:12:20 UTC | SK53 | I'd strongly support DaveF here: before designation became widely used access=designated or foot=designated was often used for Public Rights of Way. This may or may not be the case here, but removal of the tag does nothing to improve OSM, and may degrade the information.This changeset discussion... | |
| 48583707 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-05-22 08:23:23 UTC | Richard | Hi Mike - could I ask why you've deleted this relation? I was out walking in Shropshire the other day and saw clear waymarkers for it. |
| 48487559 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-05-08 07:55:25 UTC | OffTheChart | The roads inside the gates are known by the Gate Numbers, so it wasn't incorrect as it was. If this doesn't render on the map I will revert your changes. Will you ***PLEASE*** consider adding new detail rather than meddling with existing features? |
| 2 | 2017-05-08 09:14:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi if the roads inside are known by the gate numbers then I stand corrected. It would be useful if you added a note to say that this is the case as this is extremely unusual. However, roads should only be named with the name tag if that name is one which would be used outside the local area (i.e. wo... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-08 12:55:54 UTC | OffTheChart | I've put a lot of effort into the Jersey part of OSM, as I live here and actually know the island and its quirks. My aim has been to produce a map that is useful in its standard presentation. It's frustrating that there have been several instances of things changing and affecting this state of affai... | |
| 48274724 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-05-05 22:10:18 UTC | geow | Thank you Mike for fixing this along the whole South West Coast Path!Best RegardsKlaus |
| 47787368 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-04-14 20:34:42 UTC | ACS1986 | Hi Mike,Adding foot=yes would allow pedestrians whilst maintaining the traffic restrictions.Removing the access=no tag to allow pedestrians has the unintended effect of allowing some types of traffic which aren't permitted by the road signs egs. horses and non-motorised vehicles.Regards,Adam |
| 2 | 2017-04-14 23:48:13 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Adam,I must admit I haven't checked to see whether there is a no horses sign, but these are extremely rare in the UK, so I'd be very surprised if there is one there - they are normally only found at tunnels and other places that could be dangerous. Regarding vehicular traffic, I had thought th... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-15 12:27:45 UTC | ACS1986 | Hi,The signs are the blue circular signs meaning a road for buses, cycles and taxis only. Obviously pedestrians are also allowed unless explicitly prohibited.access=no, foot=yes, bus=yes, taxi=yes bicycle=yes seems a more accurate representation of these restrictions than motor_vehicle=no, bus=y... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-15 13:47:39 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, there are several reasons I normally choose setting motor_vehicle=no over access=no and overriding specific types of access. One is that setting access=no generally sets an incorrect value for horses - neither the blue signs nor the no entry signs prohibit horses, but I don't want to explicitly ... | |
| 46876018 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-03-16 10:29:48 UTC | Dr-Mx | Thanks, I wasn't aware of _link tags. I'll start using them. |
| 46159991 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-02-17 16:07:18 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | You might not like their name, but Pharmacy is the name of this shop and is proudly displayed above the window (as can be seen in this streetview photo)https://goo.gl/maps/ri11LPEuHyM2Would you like to undo this change? |
| 2 | 2017-02-17 16:27:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I believe the correct name is Living Care Pharmacy - I've set that as the name. You can see details at http://www.livingcarepharmacy.co.uk/find-a-pharmacy/Blossom+Street/regards,Mike | |
| 46071890 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-02-14 14:15:48 UTC | Chris Fleming | Why - The name of the premises is Buckstone Terrace Post Office - so possibly move Post Office to brand? But don't delete the name entirely? |
| 2 | 2017-02-14 14:16:59 UTC | Chris Fleming | Apologies just noticed that you fixed up the name. All good! | |
| 45959770 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-02-10 00:29:33 UTC | DaveF | HiWhy did you split these into two?Google Streetview: http://tinyurl.com/jao4ab9I hope it's not because of a failing in mkgmap again. |
| 2 | 2017-02-10 09:14:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Dave,You can see why I split them by looking at the OSM rendered map - it only shows one of the facilities. However, the primary reason is that the shop and post office have different details that cannot be represented correctly together. If you look at these details you will see that the new... | |
| 45893257 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-02-07 20:02:08 UTC | GinaroZ | While it's good you've removed the unnecessary name from the school, would it not be better to improve the map by adding the actual name?You could have a look at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/G/ for the name |
| 2 | 2017-02-07 20:29:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, yes you are quite right. I had not seen the list you mention before.However, I am going through a process of removing a few hundred of these throughout the UK (not just schools) and looking every one up would be too time consuming, as I don't necessarily know the postcode areas. Also, the w... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-08 17:40:04 UTC | GinaroZ | Well in this case I googled the village name + primary school and visited the website to confirm the name/location. There's also the website https://schools.mapthe.uk/ (not working at the moment) which uses OS open data to add the polygon and name data.Not sure I'd rely on people noticing there'... | |
| 4 | 2017-02-09 08:26:37 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The error checking website http://keepright.at flags schools with no name as errors, so they should get noticed. Thanks for the info on post offices.Cheers,Mike | |
| 28477091 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-25 11:00:59 UTC | DaveF | HiIs it construction or meadow? It can't be both. |
| 2 | 2017-01-25 11:06:32 UTC | Mike Baggaley | no idea, all I did is correct a spelling mistake | |
| 3 | 2017-01-25 11:12:51 UTC | DaveF | Apologies. I clicked on the incorrect changeset. | |
| 45411606 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-24 14:02:24 UTC | SK53 | Hi Mike,These may have been inappropriate for the name tag, but the first one I looked at had useful mappable information in the tag (light vehicles only) which you have removed.I'd prefer if you actually moved name=>description than deleted the tag. |
| 37712761 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-22 10:18:16 UTC | Richard | Hi Mike,Interested to note your retagging of the D'Arcy Dalton Way with a comment that it's "no longer classified as a long-distance path". It still appears to be signposted round here and the guidebook has just (December) been republished. Can you shed any light?All the bestRich... |
| 2 | 2017-01-22 12:51:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Richard, Unfortunately I can't remember where I got the information from (possibly LDWA), but my update predates the new guidebook by almost a year. I assume that the route has subsequently been updated and reclassified. I have removed the historic prefix.Regards,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-01-22 16:34:18 UTC | Richard | Hi Mike,That's great - thank you. Went for a walk today and it is still (happily) very much in evidence on the ground, albeit a bit muddy!All the bestRichard | |
| 45164183 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-15 16:23:23 UTC | ndm | Not a description - it is a prominent name in addition to logos/branding. I have added a note that the name needs to be (re)surveyed. Could you please add such notes in the future; unless you've directly surveyed it. |
| 2 | 2017-01-15 23:59:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | In hindsight, it would have been better if I had moved Post Office to the brand tag instead of just removing it. I will go back and set the brand tag. I believe the correct name should be <something> Post Office, not just Post Office on its ownCheers,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-01-16 00:22:06 UTC | ndm | I was finishing up an edit on this road -- and found a couple of relevant photos. Have updated the name. | |
| 38295832 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-11 13:15:47 UTC | Derby45 | Hi Mike, this is only an advised route from Cycle Derby. It's not a signed route or part of any network.03 is the number of the leaflet printed locally.This shows on the cycle map as 03. |
| 2 | 2017-01-11 13:26:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | OK, probably would be better as loc_ref=3. I'll change it to that. Cheers,Mike | |
| 44242482 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-12-07 20:56:06 UTC | ndm | Not sure what "foot access" has to do with this change. It just seems to lose information about switching lanes. Bing imagery is out of date -- and I thought it was mapped fairly well. Did you survey this? |
| 2 | 2016-12-07 23:08:37 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Apologies if I have misinterpreted this junction. I was adding sidewalk=none to clarify why the road had no foot access. In looking at the junction, I did not think there was any kerb between the two directions of traffic, so considered that the correct mapping was to only have a single highway show... | |
| 44241074 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-12-07 21:05:42 UTC | ndm | I thought it was mapped fairly well. I note it doesn't align with Bing -- and there's no way for motorbikes to turn into Emma-Chris way now -- which I'm pretty sure that they are allowed to. Did you survey this? |
| 44043670 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-11-30 13:58:56 UTC | SK53 | Hmm, perhaps a comment on the changeset mighthave been more appropriate. I'd have interpreted this as meaning sidewalk=both/left/right. Just removing the tag neither helps the orirignal mapper nor improves overall data quality. Incidentally the road is not strictly a driveway as it gives access to g... |
| 28688591 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-11-05 00:28:05 UTC | trigpoint | Hi, I pass https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326960247 every day and cannot recall any signs legally prohibiting HGVs. What is the source of this, remember access tags are meant to indicate the legallity, if you wish to tag suitability then lanes=1 or width = 2m are the way to go. |
| 2 | 2016-11-05 08:38:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I split this way from way 39207901 and did not define any of the tags whilst adding the Shropshire Way relation to parts of it. You may wish to look at the adjoining parts of Isombridge Lane and remove the hgv tag from those as well. I am not local so don't know the restrictions on it.Cheers... | |
| 3 | 2016-11-05 09:38:30 UTC | trigpoint | Sorry, should have dug a bit deeper. I can see the tag has been on the original way since forever. I will investigate.Cheers Phil | |
| 41836126 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-31 22:22:34 UTC | GinaroZ | Hi, noticed you removed the ref=A199 from the roundabout - what's the reason for doing that? And are you planning on doing it for all the other roundabouts as well? |
| 2 | 2016-08-31 23:20:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the main change was to separate roads so that each road joins at a separate node, which I am aiming to do on a lot of roundabouts. Roundabouts are junctions between different roads and are not strictly part of any of the adjoining roads, and hence shouldn't have the ref of an adjoining road (the... | |
| 41717216 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-26 21:35:41 UTC | ndm | Are you sure this is correct? I thought that the whole point was that cyclists don't need to enter the roundabout -- check it out on Bing. A "Fixing roundabouts" changeset comment would've been really useful too. Cheers. |
| 2 | 2016-08-26 23:27:58 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I did use Bing to fix the roundabout, to separate the cycleway and road points where they meet the roundabout. The previous entry already touched the roundabout at the same point as the road. From Bing I would say you could draw that part of the roundabout several ways. The original violates the jun... | |
| 3 | 2016-08-27 10:24:52 UTC | ndm | Well, it's being redeveloped so will need resurveying soon. P.S. I use JOSM, so it remembers a last set of changeset comments -- but a simple text file and copy/paste would do the same for other editors -- a pain the first time, but not for subsequent edits. | |
| 41725553 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-27 10:10:08 UTC | ndm | Had to tweak it a tad -- both lanes were bus only. |
| 41717138 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-26 21:38:54 UTC | ndm | Are you sure this is correct? Buses on separated bus lane can no longer enter the roundabout. A changeset comment would be good too. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2016-08-26 23:12:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hopefully now improved - I was confused as the bus routes were showing as down the right hand lane, not the left. I have also moved them to the left lane. Regards,Mike | |
| 41686348 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-25 22:35:15 UTC | OffTheChart | Why have you made the 2 lane main road look like a lane now, and the much narrower lane now looks like the main route? Doesn't make sense! The C123 number is meaningless compared to the actual widths of the roads. Please revert. |
| 41580325 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-22 18:03:14 UTC | chillly | If the footway (or track or whatever) is a public right of way I suggest you add designation=public_footpath or designation=public_bridleway. It allows you to split the legal designation from the physical highway, for example a track (highway=track) could be a public footpath or a bridleway |
| 2 | 2016-08-22 18:47:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Not sure I understand why you have made this comment on my change - I am fully aware of the use of designation, but my change was just removing an incorrect name from the path (it had the name of a route in it). I have no idea of the legal or physical details of the path as I am not local to it. | |
| 3 | 2016-08-22 18:50:59 UTC | chillly | A changeset comment would have helped others understand what your change is about. | |
| 41449936 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-14 21:17:33 UTC | SomeoneElse | Just for info, I reverted the node drags in the previous changeset here but left https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/434932382 as you left it.I think it's all OK now, but it would do no harm for you to check :) |
| 41311613 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-08 14:01:49 UTC | trigpoint | Hi MikeSomething seems to have gone a bit wrong.here, you seem to have removed the.ways from this through route relation.What.were you trying to achieve or what did you see wrong here? Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2016-08-08 16:57:01 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Phil, my understanding of the through_route relation is that it should have two ways and one common node to indicate the normal way ahead. This relation had more that two ways connected to it and was causing warnings to be generated in a process I use based on the OSM data. I was going to try to ... | |
| 3 | 2016-08-08 20:36:27 UTC | trigpoint | Thank you for your reply Mike.The number of ways had increased, caused by adding speed limits.Had not realised the proposal had been rejected, although it is important and should be revived at some point. I am quite surprised by the lack of understanding in some of the comments, these junctions ... | |
| 38852367 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-04-25 21:23:26 UTC | ndm | Not clear how deleting the names from the driveway improves OpenStreetmap -- maybe replacing the & with a ; might have been better. Or adding a note for local mappers.Would be so much easier to tell what the changeset is meant to do if there was a comment. |
| 2 | 2016-04-25 22:35:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Apologies. These names are not the names of highways, they are the names of buildings.hence the deletion from the highway. There are others nearby that I moved the name to addr:housename, but must have omitted this one. | |
| 38852527 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-04-25 21:22:04 UTC | ndm | Would be so much easier to tell what the changeset is meant to do if there was a comment. |
| 38015759 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-03-23 11:32:20 UTC | GinaroZ | Why did you change this from a path to a footway? |
| 2 | 2016-03-23 11:39:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | because it has footway=sidewalk. The help on Tag:footway=sidewalk says, "Use footway=sidewalk along with highway=footway to tag sidewalks". Is there some reason you think it should not be a footpath? | |
| 36928012 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-03-09 21:46:28 UTC | SomeoneElse | Any reason why you've changed the Sabrina Way from route=foot;horse to route=horse?All of the bits that I've mapped it's been perfectly possible to follow on foot! |
| 2 | 2016-03-09 22:23:13 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the Sabrina way is specifically a long distance bridleway developed for the British Horse Society, according to http://www.peakdistrictview.com/ and www.ldwa.org.uk. Whilst I would expect it to be walkable (and mtb cycleable), it is not primarily a walking route, hence my reason for changing it. | |
| 3 | 2016-03-09 22:35:44 UTC | SomeoneElse | It follows bridleways, sure - but the signage is such that you'd never follow it on a horse! In what way did it look like "not a walking route" to you? | |
| 4 | 2016-03-09 22:46:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Did you read my previous note? | |
| 5 | 2016-03-09 22:48:02 UTC | SomeoneElse | Yes - although personally I tend to rely on surveys rather than websites. | |
| 6 | 2016-03-09 23:00:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Which is excellent for mapping the actual route. However, no amount of survey will tell you what the route is intended for. | |
| 7 | 2016-03-09 23:24:50 UTC | Mike Baggaley | To compare with cycle routes, pretty much all of which can be walked, we do not put route=foot;cycle, so to me it seems logical to handle this in the same way. | |
| 36734652 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:50:21 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Why have you changed the name? This section of road is called De Grey Terrace according to the signs and the addresses of the houses on it |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:57:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | As I understand it, this part of the road is still Avenue Road, with a few houses forming De Grey Terrace, so I have moved what seemed to me to be the less important name to the alt_name field so that the name Avenue Road is contiguous. It does not seem correct to me to have a road name of De Grey T... | |
| 36730463 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:44:10 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The street sign says "Tang Hall Lane 124-138" which is what is down this street.Also "addr:housenumber" should not be used for ways according to the wiki |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:47:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | One needs to use some common sense when reading street signs. The sign saying Tang Hall Lane 124-138 indicates that the street name is Tang Hall Lane with just house numbers 124-138 on this section of the road. If The street name were Tang Hall Lane 124-138, then this would mean that house number 12... | |
| 36735041 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:40:21 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The houses on the east side of this street are Railway View and the houses on the west side of this street are Northfield Terrace, this is clearly indicated by local street signs.Why have you changed the street name from "Northfield Terrace / Railway View" to "Northfield Terrace&quo... |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:40:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The street name is not Northfield Terrace / Railway View, it has two names. I have put one in the name field and the other in the alt_name field, which I believe is the correct way to handle this situation. | |
| 28884942 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2015-03-05 02:05:43 UTC | robert | Did you mean to switch the name= on Passmore Edwards Court to an addr:housename=? This has broken a match: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=907839 |
| 2 | 2015-03-06 00:17:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | oops, I think it should be OK now | |
| 28312392 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2015-01-22 00:23:10 UTC | SomeoneElse | What's the source (and licence terms) of the "Sabre Roader's Digest"?From memory (it's about a month since I drove down here) the signage round the back of Meadow Lane is a bit odd. I believe that traffic east for the A52 _is_ sent this way, and it is signed as something, but I can't ... |
| 27796962 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2015-01-04 12:51:34 UTC | SomeoneElse | FWIW I'm not familiar with the name despite having driven along here quite a bit, but seems to be a loc_name: http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/bakewell-it-was-a-joy-to-be-with-her-mum-s-tribute-to-13-bends-crash-victim-1-5605574 |