Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-11-02 17:46:58 UTCSK53 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.
22017-11-02 17:54:25 UTCMike 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.
32017-11-06 10:17:09 UTCSomeoneElse 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.
12017-11-02 09:19:07 UTCwill_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...
22017-11-02 09:26:25 UTCMike 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
32017-11-02 13:37:22 UTCRichard 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...
42017-11-02 13:39:46 UTCSK53 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...
52017-11-02 13:43:43 UTCSomeoneElse 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.
62017-11-02 15:56:09 UTCMike 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 ...
72017-11-02 17:37:33 UTCSomeoneElse > 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
82017-11-02 17:46:02 UTCMike 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 :)
92017-11-02 17:50:24 UTCRichard > it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges

That'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. ;)
102017-11-02 17:53:59 UTCSK53 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...
112017-11-03 12:27:53 UTCSomeoneElse 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...
12017-11-02 10:34:47 UTCOffTheChart 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...
22017-11-02 11:26:04 UTCOffTheChart 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 ...
32017-11-02 16:32:37 UTCMike 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...
42017-11-02 18:06:42 UTCOffTheChart 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
12017-11-02 17:48:34 UTCSK53 And it is only polite to comment changesets, particularly when you are tag fiddling.
12017-09-19 13:25:48 UTCGinaroZ Hi, just to let you know the correct tag for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/386788476 is landuse=allotments :)
12017-08-29 19:50:19 UTCDaveF Why didn't you add the correct church title?
22017-08-29 19:55:25 UTCMike Baggaley HI Dave, I didn't know what the proper name was.
Regards,
Mike
12017-08-28 20:56:02 UTCndm The name on the board for the map is "Museum" why have you changed it? Is this some arm-chair mapping exercise?
12017-08-23 17:28:13 UTCsdoerr Should node 528921324 be leisure=pitch?
22017-08-23 17:31:46 UTCMike Baggaley Oops, yes. Will correct! Thanks for letting me know.

Cheers,
Mike
32017-08-23 17:43:20 UTCsdoerr Glad to be of service! However, I think you have now accidentally overwritten 'sport' with 'fix typo', presumably intended as a changeset comment.

Steve
42017-08-23 18:20:20 UTCMike Baggaley Doh! Give me a brain. Hopefully correct now.
12017-08-17 10:23:09 UTCchillly 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.
22017-08-17 10:36:59 UTCMike 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.
32017-08-17 11:07:24 UTCchillly 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.
42017-08-17 11:09:22 UTCMike Baggaley You will find his name is also on the front of the shop.
52017-08-17 11:10:27 UTCchillly Which is why I added the name as the operator.
62017-08-17 11:19:24 UTCMike 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.
72017-08-17 11:27:22 UTCMike 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.
82017-08-17 11:33:14 UTCchillly 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...
12017-08-17 10:34:51 UTCThomas 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!
12017-07-24 20:29:10 UTCpaulbiv The wiki has access=no as a valid tag. Removing access=no needs survey evidence that access is permitted (It's BAe land).
22017-07-24 21:21:48 UTCMike 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...
32017-07-24 21:28:03 UTCpaulbiv 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.
42017-07-24 21:31:03 UTCMike Baggaley Excellent, we'll know for certain then. Thanks.
12017-07-05 13:37:11 UTCDaveF Hi
Wouldn't it benefit OSM if, instead of removing semi-inaccurate tags, to update them to their correct values?
22017-07-06 20:12:20 UTCSK53 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...
12017-05-22 08:23:23 UTCRichard 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.
12017-05-08 07:55:25 UTCOffTheChart 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?
22017-05-08 09:14:18 UTCMike 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...
32017-05-08 12:55:54 UTCOffTheChart 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...
12017-05-05 22:10:18 UTCgeow Thank you Mike for fixing this along the whole South West Coast Path!

Best Regards
Klaus
12017-04-14 20:34:42 UTCACS1986 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
22017-04-14 23:48:13 UTCMike 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...
32017-04-15 12:27:45 UTCACS1986 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...
42017-04-15 13:47:39 UTCMike 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 ...
12017-03-16 10:29:48 UTCDr-Mx Thanks, I wasn't aware of _link tags. I'll start using them.
12017-02-17 16:07:18 UTCYorvik 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/ri11LPEuHyM2
Would you like to undo this change?
22017-02-17 16:27:24 UTCMike 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
12017-02-14 14:15:48 UTCChris 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?
22017-02-14 14:16:59 UTCChris Fleming Apologies just noticed that you fixed up the name. All good!
12017-02-10 00:29:33 UTCDaveF Hi
Why did you split these into two?
Google Streetview: http://tinyurl.com/jao4ab9
I hope it's not because of a failing in mkgmap again.
22017-02-10 09:14:18 UTCMike 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...
12017-02-07 20:02:08 UTCGinaroZ 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
22017-02-07 20:29:06 UTCMike 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...
32017-02-08 17:40:04 UTCGinaroZ 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'...
42017-02-09 08:26:37 UTCMike 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
12017-01-25 11:00:59 UTCDaveF Hi
Is it construction or meadow? It can't be both.
22017-01-25 11:06:32 UTCMike Baggaley no idea, all I did is correct a spelling mistake
32017-01-25 11:12:51 UTCDaveF Apologies. I clicked on the incorrect changeset.
12017-01-24 14:02:24 UTCSK53 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.
12017-01-22 10:18:16 UTCRichard 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 best
Rich...
22017-01-22 12:51:56 UTCMike 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
32017-01-22 16:34:18 UTCRichard 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 best
Richard
12017-01-15 16:23:23 UTCndm 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.
22017-01-15 23:59:59 UTCMike 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 own
Cheers,
Mike
32017-01-16 00:22:06 UTCndm I was finishing up an edit on this road -- and found a couple of relevant photos. Have updated the name.
12017-01-11 13:15:47 UTCDerby45 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.
22017-01-11 13:26:24 UTCMike Baggaley OK, probably would be better as loc_ref=3. I'll change it to that. Cheers,
Mike
12016-12-07 20:56:06 UTCndm 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?
22016-12-07 23:08:37 UTCMike 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...
12016-12-07 21:05:42 UTCndm 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?
12016-11-30 13:58:56 UTCSK53 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...
12016-11-05 00:28:05 UTCtrigpoint 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.
22016-11-05 08:38:25 UTCMike 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...
32016-11-05 09:38:30 UTCtrigpoint 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
12016-08-31 22:22:34 UTCGinaroZ 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?
22016-08-31 23:20:11 UTCMike 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...
12016-08-26 21:35:41 UTCndm 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.
22016-08-26 23:27:58 UTCMike 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...
32016-08-27 10:24:52 UTCndm 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.
12016-08-27 10:10:08 UTCndm Had to tweak it a tad -- both lanes were bus only.
12016-08-26 21:38:54 UTCndm 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.
22016-08-26 23:12:29 UTCMike 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
12016-08-25 22:35:15 UTCOffTheChart 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.
12016-08-22 18:03:14 UTCchillly 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
22016-08-22 18:47:29 UTCMike 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.
32016-08-22 18:50:59 UTCchillly A changeset comment would have helped others understand what your change is about.
12016-08-14 21:17:33 UTCSomeoneElse 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 :)
12016-08-08 14:01:49 UTCtrigpoint Hi Mike
Something 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
22016-08-08 16:57:01 UTCMike 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 ...
32016-08-08 20:36:27 UTCtrigpoint 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 ...
12016-04-25 21:23:26 UTCndm 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.
22016-04-25 22:35:11 UTCMike 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.
12016-04-25 21:22:04 UTCndm Would be so much easier to tell what the changeset is meant to do if there was a comment.
12016-03-23 11:32:20 UTCGinaroZ Why did you change this from a path to a footway?
22016-03-23 11:39:09 UTCMike 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?
12016-03-09 21:46:28 UTCSomeoneElse 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!
22016-03-09 22:23:13 UTCMike 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.
32016-03-09 22:35:44 UTCSomeoneElse 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?
42016-03-09 22:46:24 UTCMike Baggaley Did you read my previous note?
52016-03-09 22:48:02 UTCSomeoneElse Yes - although personally I tend to rely on surveys rather than websites.
62016-03-09 23:00:24 UTCMike Baggaley Which is excellent for mapping the actual route. However, no amount of survey will tell you what the route is intended for.
72016-03-09 23:24:50 UTCMike 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.
12016-01-22 21:50:21 UTCYorvik 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
22016-01-23 00:57:22 UTCMike 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...
12016-01-22 21:44:10 UTCYorvik 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
22016-01-23 00:47:18 UTCMike 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...
12016-01-22 21:40:21 UTCYorvik 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...
22016-01-23 00:40:06 UTCMike 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.
12015-03-05 02:05:43 UTCrobert 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
22015-03-06 00:17:25 UTCMike Baggaley oops, I think it should be OK now
12015-01-22 00:23:10 UTCSomeoneElse 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 ...
12015-01-04 12:51:34 UTCSomeoneElse 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
48 changeset(s) created by Mike Baggaley have been discussed with a total of 119 comment(s)