| Changeset |
No. |
Date |
Contributor |
Comment |
|
| 50532815 | paulbiv | The wiki has access=no as a valid tag. Removing access=no needs survey evidence that access is permitted (It's BAe land). |
| 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... |
| 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. |
| Mike Baggaley | Excellent, we'll know for certain then. Thanks. |
|
| 50055007 | DaveF | HiWouldn't it benefit OSM if, instead of removing semi-inaccurate tags, to update them to their correct values? |
| 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 | 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 | 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? |
| 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... |
| 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 | geow | Thank you Mike for fixing this along the whole South West Coast Path!Best RegardsKlaus |
|
| 47787368 | 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 |
| 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... |
| 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... |
| 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 | Dr-Mx | Thanks, I wasn't aware of _link tags. I'll start using them. |
|
| 46159991 | 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? |
| 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 | 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? |
| Chris Fleming | Apologies just noticed that you fixed up the name. All good! |
|
| 45959770 | 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. |
| 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 | 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 |
| 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... |
| 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'... |
| 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 | DaveF | HiIs it construction or meadow? It can't be both. |
| Mike Baggaley | no idea, all I did is correct a spelling mistake |
| DaveF | Apologies. I clicked on the incorrect changeset. |
|
| 45411606 | 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 | 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... |
| 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 |
| 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 | 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. |
| 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 |
| ndm | I was finishing up an edit on this road -- and found a couple of relevant photos. Have updated the name. |
|
| 38295832 | ENB45 | 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. |
| Mike Baggaley | OK, probably would be better as loc_ref=3. I'll change it to that. Cheers,Mike |
|
| 44242482 | 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? |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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. |
| 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... |
| 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 | 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? |
| 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 | 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. |
| 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... |
| 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 | ndm | Had to tweak it a tad -- both lanes were bus only. |
|
| 41717138 | 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. |
| 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 | 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 | 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 |
| 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. |
| chillly | A changeset comment would have helped others understand what your change is about. |
|
| 41449936 | 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 | 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 |
| 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 ... |
| 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 | 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. |
| 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 | ndm | Would be so much easier to tell what the changeset is meant to do if there was a comment. |
|
| 38015759 | GinaroZ | Why did you change this from a path to a footway? |
| 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 | 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! |
| 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. |
| 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? |
| Mike Baggaley | Did you read my previous note? |
| SomeoneElse | Yes - although personally I tend to rely on surveys rather than websites. |
| Mike Baggaley | Which is excellent for mapping the actual route. However, no amount of survey will tell you what the route is intended for. |
| 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 | 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 |
| 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 | 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 |
| 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 | 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... |
| 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 | 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 |
| Mike Baggaley | oops, I think it should be OK now |
|
| 28312392 | 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 | 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 |