| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26113598 by Mike Baggaley @ 2014-10-16 09:40 | 1 | 2024-05-02 17:52 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Hi Mike I was considering changing Crinkle Crags to be a ridge line (natural=ridge) as I think that's a reasonable description of it. Thought I'd check in with you and see if you had an opinion before doing so.Cheers, Tom |
| 2 | 2024-05-03 07:48 | Mike Baggaley | That sounds reasonable to me Tom | |
| 3 | 2024-05-05 22:08 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Thanks Mike https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150900721 | |
| 116827064 by Mike Baggaley @ 2022-01-31 14:51 | 1 | 2022-02-04 15:13 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | There's a fingerpost at either end of this route which say "low tide route", is that not enough to get it named? |
| 2 | 2022-02-04 17:36 | Mike Baggaley | No, the fingerpost is containing information about the (Fife Coastal Path) route, not the name of the path. The path is tagged as tidal, and as an alternative section of the route. | |
| 61942706 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-08-24 07:10 | 1 | 2021-11-12 19:07 | SK53 ♦864 | Hmm, it would have been better to check with me. The footpath is closed ("gating order") not open. |
| 2 | 2021-11-13 18:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hmm, perhaps you shouldn't have put foot=yes then. My change had no effect on the resultant access. | |
| 113176702 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-10-30 23:18 | 1 | 2021-10-31 12:42 | JassKurn ♦153 | Hi, you've made a significant change to access but have not provided a source. Just want to confirm you meant the changes you made. |
| 2 | 2021-10-31 13:09 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, yes, the road has a footway/cycleway alongside so by definition must allow pedestrians and cyclists. No entry signs should not map to access=no, they should map to vehicle=no (or motor_vehicle=no if bicycles are allowed). | |
| 3 | 2021-10-31 14:18 | JassKurn ♦153 | Not sure sure of what you mean "by definition", what definition are you referring to? Is this something in the OSM wiki, or mailing lists?Last time I was there the "cycle track" and adjacent roads are separate ways. Has there been a change to highways layout? Or has ther... | |
| 4 | 2021-11-02 13:06 | JassKurn ♦153 | Hi, I've assumed the edit was made with with presumption that the shared route cycleway had not been mapped as a separate way. The "shared route" cycle track has been mapped in OSM as seperate way. Below is a link to an image I captured in August 2021https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZU... | |
| 5 | 2021-11-02 14:33 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, access=no is incorrect. As previously stated, a no entry sign does not mean access=no, it means vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no if cycling is allowed. It is perfectly legal to walk in the road unless there is a no pedestrians sign (your picture only shows a no entry sign). Cycleways are not manda... | |
| 6 | 2021-11-02 16:36 | JassKurn ♦153 | The carriageway has a prohibition limiting access to only buses. Any pedal cycle moving past the signs (either end of road) on the carriageway would be committing an offence. Correctly stating that cycle tracks are not "mandatory", does not change the prohibition affecting the carriageway... | |
| 7 | 2021-11-02 16:38 | JassKurn ♦153 | I made a mistake in previous comment. I should have stated I would have no issue with the tag being changed to vehicle=noBut now thinking about it that would allow horse access, which I assume would be prohibited | |
| 8 | 2021-11-02 16:47 | Mike Baggaley | Horses are not prohibited by a no entry sign unless they are pulling a carriage or cart, in which case they are vehicles. | |
| 113177025 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-10-30 23:46 | 1 | 2021-11-01 17:01 | Mex ♦72 | Thanks for the fix. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113177025 |
| 53431171 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-11-01 18:08 | 1 | 2017-11-02 10:34 | OffTheChart ♦13 | 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 h... |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 11:26 | OffTheChart ♦13 | 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 ind... | |
| 3 | 2017-11-02 16:32 | 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 t... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-02 18:06 | OffTheChart ♦13 | 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 | |
| 5 | 2021-07-31 02:12 | Lee Carré ♦665 | http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer | |
| 107705243 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-07-09 12:50 | 1 | 2021-07-12 13:38 | dzidek23 ♦59 | I think your amendments to the Boongate street are factually correct. However, I wouldn't like to see walkers choosing Boongate over designated footpaths to either side of this street. Boongate bridge is no place for pedestrians nor cyclists (even if there is no sign preventing them to use it).... |
| 2 | 2021-07-12 13:51 | Mike Baggaley | Walkers will decide for themselves whether to walk along the adjacent paths. For those who build maps without sidewalks there will be no available route if foot=no is specified. Any walking router should be able to choose a footpath in preference to a road. I agree that it would be helpful if there ... | |
| 107663455 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-07-08 22:25 | 1 | 2021-07-08 23:18 | Bexhill-OSM ♦94 | Hi, correct me if I am wrong, but I assumed that by adding the designated foot and cycle path that goes along south of this road, routing for foot traffic could be removed from the road itself? Thanks,Alex |
| 2 | 2021-07-09 06:42 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Alex, foot=no should only be specified if there is a sign indicating no pedestrians. It is perfectly legal to walk in the road in the UK. Renderers may also build maps that do not include sidewalks.Cheers,Mike | |
| 3 | 2021-07-10 13:52 | Bexhill-OSM ♦94 | Thanks for the clarification Mike, much appreciated :) | |
| 107513881 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-07-06 17:54 | 1 | 2021-07-06 19:54 | ndm ♦889 | Probably needs reverting - rest of the "round road" is a roundabout. |
| 2 | 2021-07-06 23:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hadn't realised I'd only changed half the roundabout. Have now changed the rest of it to circular. | |
| 105512644 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-05-28 21:17 | 1 | 2021-06-03 08:42 | saintam1 ♦158 | Hello, I notice you removed foot=use_sidepath tags I'd recently added. I'm not precious about them but I thought it was the correct tagging. My reading of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot%3Duse_sidepath is that since the pavements are drawn separately here, pedestrians should b... |
| 2 | 2021-06-03 09:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, my understanding is that use_sidepath is intended for use in countries where it is a legal requirement to use the sidepath where one exists. That is not the case in the UK where it is legal to walk along any roadway or cycleway unless specifically prohibited (it may not be safe to do so, but the... | |
| 3 | 2021-06-03 09:34 | saintam1 ♦158 | I would've thought it was forbidden to walk on the road itself where there's a pavement, but if you say so. Cheers. | |
| 105073051 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-05-21 08:03 | 1 | 2021-05-21 09:39 | NavigatorPilot ♦2 | I take your point regarding the nearby Hill Road, but at the north-east end of this way the actual sign says both Alma Square and Hamilton Gardens. It seems other mapping products also render both names, so wouldn't it be sensible to include both names here? |
| 104826325 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-05-17 12:35 | 1 | 2021-05-17 21:42 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Is there any reason area:highway=* and highway=* + area=yes cannot co-exist, at least until OSM Carto renders area:highway? |
| 104355475 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-05-08 08:55 | 1 | 2021-05-08 21:29 | ndm ♦889 | Why have you removed the bus-only tagging https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=DZ6C024e0nUGfdPEEkLuBL&lat=51.499329982373396&lng=-2.4796254560374464&z=17&x=0.4861360520140399&y=0.6484835871922798&zoom=0 |
| 2 | 2021-05-08 21:34 | Mike Baggaley | I have not removed the bus only tagging. The sign does not prohibit pedestrians or horses, only vehicles other than buses, which are still prohibited in my tagging - see bicycle=no and motor_vehicle=no. | |
| 97319805 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-01-11 16:48 | 1 | 2021-01-11 18:27 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Thanks. I'll have to walk the Three Forests Way at some point in order to fill in the rather large gaps either side of Theydon Mount/Theydon Tawney. |
| 2 | 2021-01-11 19:52 | Mike Baggaley | 18km tagged, 78km to go! | |
| 96798090 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-01-02 08:57 | 1 | 2021-01-02 17:34 | gurglypipe ♦872 | What was incorrect about the foot= tagging here? |
| 96797290 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-01-02 08:20 | 1 | 2021-01-02 10:55 | JayTurnr ♦155 | The tag was added by StreetComplete after it asked me if pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road here. Since the northern edge of the road was a fence which is already drawn and the southern edge of the road has definitely has a fence in the past (need to resurvey if it's still there) I kne... |
| 96604309 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-12-29 13:20 | 1 | 2020-12-29 15:59 | ndm ♦889 | https://www.southglos.gov.uk/documents/Road-to-Nowhere-Website-Document.pdf |
| 2 | 2020-12-29 17:28 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, The document doesn't seem to describe this section of road, which in my view was arbitrarily named as a continuation of "Road to Nowhere". Although there are some road names containing brackets, in most cases they are made up descriptions and not proper names. If you believe this ... | |
| 53338304 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-10-29 10:55 | 1 | 2020-12-24 12:58 | Jez Nicholson ♦70 | A long time ago, I know, but just been reading https://memoirsofametrogirl.com/2018/12/29/sloane-square-tube-station-river-westbourne-kilburn-history/ is this actually a culvert and not an aquaduct? |
| 2 | 2020-12-24 13:15 | Mike Baggaley | Looks like bridge=aqueduct would be more appropriate - despite it being in a pipe, the pipe is above ground, so can't be said to be a culvert. | |
| 53425808 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-11-01 14:29 | 1 | 2020-10-27 14:44 | IpswichMapper ♦24 | Hello. What is your reasoning to change the "Stour and Orwell Walk" from a walking route to a hiking route? |
| 2 | 2020-10-27 15:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hello, if a route is primarily paved or short so that one would expect to be able to walk it in ordinary shoes then I would use walking, it it is mostly unpaved and you would expect to use walking shoes or boots then I would use hiking. | |
| 3 | 2020-10-29 00:32 | IpswichMapper ♦24 | Hello,From reading the wiki a bit more, it seems you a right. This is a very long route, so it probably not a regular "walking" route. Thanks for responding. | |
| 47605105 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-04-09 22:00 | 1 | 2020-10-25 15:50 | Pink Duck ♦151 | It seems you erroneously removed the default access=no from the bus/cycle-only section of road 3 years back linking Clover Hill Road with Earlham Green Lane. Or was there a reason for doing this? |
| 2 | 2020-10-25 16:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, access=no is incorrect as it prohibits pedestrian traffic. The way has motor_vehicle=no which prohibits motor vehicles other than those specified and is the correct prohibition. | |
| 3 | 2020-10-25 17:01 | Pink Duck ♦151 | So are you saying the legal sign bus and cycle blue instruction type means pedestrians are permitted? That seems risky considering it's a bus lane. | |
| 4 | 2020-10-25 17:10 | Mike Baggaley | The only pedestrian prohibition sign in the UK is a walking person in a red circle. Otherwise pedestrians are allowed. We map the legal status, not safety. I would say it is far safer to walk in a bus lane than the main highway as there is much less traffic! | |
| 5 | 2020-10-25 17:24 | Pink Duck ♦151 | The pavements are legal for pedestrians of course, but that split-section of road is not legally permitted to walk and has no pavement. The resolution could be to explicitly create a footpath/sidewalk for pedestrian routing while maintaining the correct legal restriction on the road ways. | |
| 6 | 2020-10-25 18:00 | Mike Baggaley | Why do you think that walking is not legal on that section of road? It is legal to walk of any public highway whether or not is has a pavement unless it is a motorway, motorway slip or has a no walking sign. Most of the UK road signs apply to either vehicular traffic or motor vehicular traffic only.... | |
| 7 | 2020-10-25 18:04 | Pink Duck ♦151 | In this case there's separate pavement provision and the sign 'only' implies all except listed mode types, which to me excludes pedestrians. I've been trying to find where in law it's okay for pedestrians to walk in bus lanes or in zones such as this. Am fine with tagging to... | |
| 8 | 2020-10-25 18:36 | Pink Duck ♦151 | DfT "Know Your Traffic Signs" contains "Blue circles generally give a mandatory instruction,such as 'turn left', or indicate a route available only to particular classes of traffic, e.g. buses and cycles only" and "Blue rectangles are used for information signs exc... | |
| 9 | 2020-10-25 18:50 | Mike Baggaley | The copy at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519129/know-your-traffic-signs.pdf on page 16 says "A BLUE CIRCLE generally gives a positive(mandatory) instruction or indicates a route for use only byparticular classes of vehicle (... | |
| 10 | 2020-10-26 09:12 | Pink Duck ♦151 | Good spot, so I guess all that's needed is to revise motor_vehicle=no to vehicle=no, with the override more-specific exemptions for psv/bicycle and default UK foot=yes. | |
| 11 | 2020-10-26 09:25 | Pink Duck ♦151 | Re-reading that again though it is restricting route use to particular classes of vehicle, not necessarily exempting foot or horse-drawn carriage, say. TSRGD2016 Schedule 3 also headed "Upright signs that indicate regulatory requirements for moving traffic". So I remain unconvinced. | |
| 12 | 2020-10-26 18:34 | Mike Baggaley | If you look at the Road Traffic Act 1988 it contains only the following sections that relate to pedestrians:Directions to traffic and to pedestrians and traffic signs35.Drivers to comply with traffic directions36.Drivers to comply with traffic signs37.Directions to pedestriansWhere a c... | |
| 13 | 2020-10-27 09:37 | Pink Duck ♦151 | I found in RTRA 1984 Chapter 27, Traffic regulation orders outside Greater London may make order for facilitating: 1(c) "any class of traffic (including pedestrians)"Norwich City council made a TRO at https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Norwich/Norwich-City-Council-Bowthorpe-... | |
| 89919652 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-08-25 14:04 | 1 | 2020-08-25 21:36 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I disagree. And even if they should be the same, I think 'unclassified' is the wrong tag for the northbound sign, since it's main role is as a slip road from a motorway onto a secondary road. |
| 2 | 2020-08-26 08:38 | Mike Baggaley | I would be OK with the northbound carriageway being a continuation of the trunk link, even though it is not strictly one. I do not think it can be considered part of the B1043 which is how it was previously tagged. The south bound cannot be considered to be any kind of link road. It is a slightly un... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-26 08:53 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I think 'secondary' is probably best (though without the ref). (I'm basing this partly upon the various wiki pages for highway links). | |
| 4 | 2020-08-26 09:08 | Mike Baggaley | As it is not part of the B1043, it should not be secondary. If it is being considered a link between B1043 and A1(M) then trunk link is the correct tag. If not then unclassified seems to me to be best. The wiki says "Try not to split up the link into one part belonging to one road and one to th... | |
| 5 | 2020-08-26 09:30 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I think that statement is relating to the case of a simple link with no intermediate junctions, with the instruction being to not choose an arbitrary division point.I think this point is relevant (from the highway_link page):"A preexisting street used to connect two major highways is not a ... | |
| 6 | 2020-08-26 13:51 | Mike Baggaley | I think that the statement "Instead it should be tagged as the normal highway it previously was, probably equivalent to the lower classification of the ones it connects" would not suggest secondary here. If we consider the case where there is no slip road from the A1(M) (i.e. we are lookin... | |
| 7 | 2020-08-26 19:45 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I think "normal" in that sentence means "not a _link". The example given in the footnote showed a highway link using a pre-existing unclassified road to join onto a secondary road. The portion of the unclassified road involved was then tagged as a secondary road. (Both roads were... | |
| 8 | 2020-08-27 12:49 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I've returned this to highway=secondary in changeset 89919652, because I think that is much more appropriate. I wouldn't object to this being changed to secondary_link, and/or the reverse direction being changed to a matching classification. | |
| 45146331 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-01-13 20:39 | 1 | 2020-08-18 11:19 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Hi MikeI realise this was a long time ago, but why did you move the name to description?It appears to be a valid name based on OS Opendata.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2020-08-18 12:58 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Phil, it looks like I inadvertently grabbed the wrong way when attempting to remove the name of the adjacent alleyway which had been named as "Plasygamil access road" which I revisited a few days later. Well spotted.Cheers,Mike | |
| 87505872 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-07-03 13:22 | 1 | 2020-07-03 14:33 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Which aerial imagery did you use for these amendments, as you placed the Rush Hill way across a pavement? |
| 2 | 2020-07-03 14:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, I used Bing, however, I only straightened lines slightly. The incoming flare from Rush hill had a kink in it. The whole roundabout is slightly off Bing, but I did not realign it as the image is not very clear. It looks like the whole roundabout needs to move SW slightly, which would likely ... | |
| 84789813 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-05-06 23:32 | 1 | 2020-05-07 08:06 | JodaStephen ♦59 | This is my standard tagging for areas like this, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40128/-0.19643 for example. The key question is when does something stop being just a traffic island and start being a plaza? FWIW, I think for larger islands like this, having them rendered is useful (as o... |
| 2 | 2020-05-07 08:09 | JodaStephen ♦59 | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40850/-0.21561 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40728/-0.21938 both of which are a lot clearer for pedestrians as currently tagged. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84789813... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-07 08:18 | Mike Baggaley | This clearly is not a pedestrianised area and tagging it as such so that it displays in grey on the map is known as tagging for the renderer, which is frowned upon by the OSM community. Giving it two different highway tags is also completely confusing. | |
| 83264362 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-04-08 16:41 | 1 | 2020-04-08 18:52 | ndm ♦889 | *Please* don't make "invisible" access changes when local mappers will consider this to be (previously) mapped fully/correctly. At the very *least* add a note on the map, so that locals can update it in the future -- unless you're prepared to remember to do so (add a date in your... |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 21:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, sorry, I don't understand your comment. My change was correcting the previous update which set foot=conditional=no, bicycle=conditional=no, horse=conditional=no along with a note saying the track was closed. These access conditions were invalid and can not be considered to be mapped fully o... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-08 22:13 | ndm ♦889 | Hi Mike,You're right the main issue was the preceding changeset -- but setting access to "no" makes it hard to tell what it should be when the track reopens. Cheers, Neil | |
| 82835358 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-03-30 16:51 | 1 | 2020-03-30 18:48 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Please add a note to the map or leave a comment on the original changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54992911 - as just a fixme is not likely to be seen by many people.I've added one here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2142415 |
| 81748568 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-03-04 00:18 | 1 | 2020-03-05 17:55 | Strimplers ♦33 | There is a turn restriction on Church Rd. One may turn left onto Westhampnett Rd but not turn right on the roundabout. |
| 2 | 2020-03-05 18:14 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks, I think the restriction is now correct. | |
| 81105503 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-02-17 09:38 | 1 | 2020-02-21 16:18 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I don't think this is a correct fix - you've just changed one incomplete mapping of the car park into a different less accurate mapping of the car park (the 'dead end' you removed was the exit from the bottom of the spiral ramp; you've redirected it to connect to an exit fro... |
| 2 | 2020-02-21 16:53 | Mike Baggaley | Apologies for getting this wrong. The ways were already connected, but with the opposite direction in one segment, which looked wrong. I've reverted and added amenity=parking_entrance on the dead end. Could you please check this is now correct? Thanks, Mike | |
| 81106089 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-02-17 09:50 | 1 | 2020-02-17 13:14 | Peter Newman ♦33 | Is this not still a dead end, as you've got two one way roads in opposite directions at the corner, or is there actually another missing way out of the parking on the right? |
| 2 | 2020-02-17 13:21 | Mike Baggaley | That is how it was before the change. I deleted one of the ways and extended the other. | |
| 3 | 2020-02-17 13:32 | Peter Newman ♦33 | Ah apologies, the rendered map hasn't updated or I'm doing something daft or similar. | |
| 4 | 2020-02-17 13:48 | Mike Baggaley | If you press the Ctrl key while clicking refresh then the locally cached images should get replaced. | |
| 5 | 2020-02-17 14:00 | Peter Newman ♦33 | Yeah Ctrl+F5 fixed it, that's curious given I'd not visited that bit of the map before seeing the comment. I guess there was still some delay in it re-rendering and I got the old cached one in the past. | |
| 80001364 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-24 01:19 | 1 | 2020-01-26 13:38 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,what does the tag 'fix bridge' mean? This is not used in any other place. |
| 2 | 2020-01-26 13:44 | Mike Baggaley | Oops, that was supposed to be in the change note, not added as a tag. I have now removed it. The change was to set bridge=yes instead of bridge=1. | |
| 79869596 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-21 17:43 | 1 | 2020-01-24 18:43 | Jebar ♦1 | Former Road, now with locked barriers at both ends, allowing access to pedestrians, horses, cycles etc. only |
| 2 | 2020-01-24 19:08 | Mike Baggaley | HI, welcome to OSM. I removed access=no because on highway=footway, this causes confusion as to whether or not it was intended to close the footpath completely. It is common for editors to add access=no to a footpath to indicate it has been closed, forgetting that any foot=yes will override it. If i... | |
| 79133963 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-02 23:29 | 1 | 2020-01-05 11:07 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Hi, these changes have upset the OSL Musical Chairs tool, which now thinks that Red Pike Close and High Style Close don’t exist on OSM (but do exist in the OSL list). Is there anything which can be done about this to rectify the false positive in the tool? Thanks. |
| 2 | 2020-01-06 00:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I'm not familiar with that tool. I suggest the best bet it to get the tool modified so it understands the lifecycle prefixes. A quick look at the tool suggests that it has not been updated for several years (and hence predates lifecycle prefixes) and that the code also does not examine old_... | |
| 3 | 2020-01-16 00:57 | gurglypipe ♦872 | That makes sense. Looking into it more closely, it seems the OSL dataset was withdrawn in 2015, so the OSLMC tool is never going to be useful again until it’s updated to use the replacement OS Open Names dataset, and that’s too much of a change for me to tackle. :(https://wiki.openst... | |
| 79086061 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-01 16:46 | 1 | 2020-01-01 17:51 | ndm ♦889 | Reverting this -- access was previously correct. |
| 2 | 2020-01-01 18:49 | Mike Baggaley | Previous access was incorrect. access=staff is not a recognised value - access=private is the correct value to use for staff access. access=delivery allows more access than private, so already covers the staff. | |
| 78983197 by Mike Baggaley @ 2019-12-29 16:21 | 1 | 2019-12-29 18:01 | will_p ♦148 | The public bookcase was still there when I walked by here a few weeks ago. Why have you deleted it? |
| 2 | 2019-12-29 18:19 | Mike Baggaley | It needs to be on a separate node than the bus stop. I have now added it in as a separate node. | |
| 3 | 2019-12-29 18:40 | will_p ♦148 | It's always better not to delete other mappers' contributions just because you disagree with the tagging. Either improve things or leave them as they are. | |
| 47635055 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-04-10 18:46 | 1 | 2019-11-01 06:44 | sskalyan ♦67 | Hi Mike Baggaley,Good job mapping in UK.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16522484 You have modified access tag to the above segment 2 years ago, which is in conflict with our internal traces.Our internal traces suggest vehicles can travel from Burton Street to Upper Parliament Street via ... |
| 74015367 by Mike Baggaley @ 2019-09-02 23:08 | 1 | 2019-09-03 08:39 | Nakaner ♦3,147 | Hi Mike,I agree with your change (removing tagging for the renderer) but Martin Wynne added the wrong highway=footway/pedestrian tags again. See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74021760 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62169903Best regardsMichael |
| 70503761 by Mike Baggaley @ 2019-05-22 07:38 | 1 | 2019-05-22 12:48 | LivingWithDragons ♦52 | Hi Mike, thanks for continuing to help OpenStreetMap.Don't forget to provide a comment when you save to explain what you're doing and what your source was (e.g. edits while out with GPS recording, using local knowledge or Bing imagery).More info is at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/... |
| 66109004 by Mike Baggaley @ 2019-01-07 20:42 | 1 | 2019-01-07 22:15 | ndm ♦889 | I surveyed this - why has it been moved? |
| 2 | 2019-01-07 23:05 | Mike Baggaley | Apologies, your edit seemed to imply you had turned the node into a shop (shop=yes was added). It is quite common for naptan imported bus stops to get hijacked and merged with other items which have the same or similar names (e.g. a stop named Post Office will be moved and amenity=post_office added)... | |
| 3 | 2019-01-07 23:24 | ndm ♦889 | Oh bother, that means the "shelter=yes" I meant to add didn't make it :-) | |
| 65314007 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-12-09 12:49 | 1 | 2018-12-09 14:45 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | You should really have moved the "catholic" value to the denomination tag instead of removing it. |
| 2 | 2018-12-09 14:55 | Mike Baggaley | Catholic seemed like it would probably be incorrect for denomination as well as for religion - most UK 'catholic' churches should be tagged roman_catholic, not catholic. Didn't know which was correct for this one, so left blank. | |
| 64169915 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-11-04 15:55 | 1 | 2018-11-04 17:10 | will_p ♦148 | Are you sure this change is correct? Most spiritualist churches don't consider themselves to be Christian, but a separate religion. This certainly applies to churches affiliated with the Spiritualists' National Union, which is the most common type.Regards,Will |
| 2 | 2018-11-04 18:02 | Mike Baggaley | Apologies, you are quite correct. A mix up on my part. I have corrected. | |
| 63724909 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-10-21 11:37 | 1 | 2018-10-21 21:03 | ndm ♦889 | Reverting this one. |
| 61863943 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-08-21 17:47 | 1 | 2018-10-04 16:06 | iccaldwell ♦24 | This path is closed due to construction. This was discussed on talk-gb at the end of July |
| 2 | 2018-10-04 16:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note that when a footway is closed, it is no use setting access=no and foot=yes, as foot=yes overrides access=no. I will update appropriately. | |
| 60040229 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-06-21 11:10 | 1 | 2018-06-27 11:17 | mueschel ♦6,567 | 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 | 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 | mueschel ♦6,567 | 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 @ 2018-03-27 14:51 | 1 | 2018-03-27 16:23 | gurglypipe ♦872 | 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 | Mike Baggaley | Trivial changeset. Moved it nearer the junction. | |
| 41073483 by Mike Baggaley @ 2016-07-27 21:52 | 1 | 2018-03-26 17:49 | Borbus ♦31 | 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 ... |
| 2 | 2018-03-26 23:37 | 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 ... | |
| 57498730 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-03-25 01:08 | 1 | 2018-03-25 14:59 | lakedistrict ♦308 | 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 | 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 contr... | |
| 3 | 2018-03-25 15:42 | lakedistrict ♦308 | No worries, I'm local so I'll check it out sometime soon. | |
| 56159770 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-02-07 20:06 | 1 | 2018-02-20 01:23 | JayTurnr ♦155 | I assume Naptan import data is important? |
| 2 | 2018-02-20 07:41 | 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 @ 2018-02-14 16:29 | 1 | 2018-02-15 16:15 | Yorvik Prestigitator ♦151 | Have the signs at the entrance to Agar Street saying no motor vehicles except for access been removed? |
| 56348412 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-02-14 10:06 | 1 | 2018-02-14 12:48 | DaveF ♦1,563 | 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 | 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 shou... | |
| 56308101 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-02-12 23:08 | 1 | 2018-02-13 09:08 | OffTheChart ♦13 | 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 @ 2018-02-09 23:57 | 1 | 2018-02-10 13:41 | John-O ♦65 | thanks for correcting this |
| 55924441 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-01-31 08:57 | 1 | 2018-01-31 13:23 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Can't work out what you changed here? |
| 2 | 2018-01-31 13:39 | 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 @ 2017-12-06 16:32 | 1 | 2017-12-06 22:02 | matt_ellery ♦74 | 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 b... |
| 2 | 2017-12-07 08:31 | Mike Baggaley | Excellent, looks good to me! | |
| 51509558 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-28 13:29 | 1 | 2017-11-02 17:46 | SK53 ♦864 | 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 | 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 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | 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 @ 2017-11-01 09:39 | 1 | 2017-11-02 09:19 | will_p ♦148 | 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 iden... |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 09:26 | 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 | Richard ♦220 | 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 valu... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-02 13:39 | SK53 ♦864 | 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 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | 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 | 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 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | > 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#L5... | |
| 8 | 2017-11-02 17:46 | 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 | Richard ♦220 | > 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 | SK53 ♦864 | 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 ... | |
| 11 | 2017-11-03 12:27 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | 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 abs... | |
| 51509509 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-28 13:28 | 1 | 2017-11-02 17:48 | SK53 ♦864 | And it is only polite to comment changesets, particularly when you are tag fiddling. |
| 50513259 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-07-23 23:36 | 1 | 2017-09-19 13:25 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Hi, just to let you know the correct tag for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/386788476 is landuse=allotments :) |
| 51544076 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-29 13:34 | 1 | 2017-08-29 19:50 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Why didn't you add the correct church title? |
| 2 | 2017-08-29 19:55 | Mike Baggaley | HI Dave, I didn't know what the proper name was.Regards,Mike | |
| 51511389 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-28 14:32 | 1 | 2017-08-28 20:56 | ndm ♦889 | 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 @ 2017-08-22 13:38 | 1 | 2017-08-23 17:28 | sdoerr ♦71 | Should node 528921324 be leisure=pitch? |
| 2 | 2017-08-23 17:31 | Mike Baggaley | Oops, yes. Will correct! Thanks for letting me know.Cheers,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-08-23 17:43 | sdoerr ♦71 | 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 | Mike Baggaley | Doh! Give me a brain. Hopefully correct now. | |
| 51149076 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-15 18:47 | 1 | 2017-08-17 10:23 | chillly ♦819 | 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 | 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 | chillly ♦819 | 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 | Mike Baggaley | You will find his name is also on the front of the shop. | |
| 5 | 2017-08-17 11:10 | chillly ♦819 | Which is why I added the name as the operator. | |
| 6 | 2017-08-17 11:19 | 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 | 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 | chillly ♦819 | 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 @ 2017-08-13 21:51 | 1 | 2017-08-17 10:34 | ◪ Jarv ♦240 | 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 @ 2017-07-24 16:07 | 1 | 2017-07-24 20:29 | paulbiv ♦12 | 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 | 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 | paulbiv ♦12 | 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 | Mike Baggaley | Excellent, we'll know for certain then. Thanks. | |
| 50055007 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-07-05 10:18 | 1 | 2017-07-05 13:37 | DaveF ♦1,563 | 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 | SK53 ♦864 | 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 discu... | |
| 48583707 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-05-11 07:48 | 1 | 2017-05-22 08:23 | Richard ♦220 | 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 @ 2017-05-08 00:03 | 1 | 2017-05-08 07:55 | OffTheChart ♦13 | 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 | 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 | OffTheChart ♦13 | 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 stat... | |
| 48274724 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-04-30 07:44 | 1 | 2017-05-05 22:10 | geow ♦446 | Thank you Mike for fixing this along the whole South West Coast Path!Best RegardsKlaus |
| 47787368 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-04-14 17:04 | 1 | 2017-04-14 20:34 | ACS1986 ♦61 | 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,\... |
| 2 | 2017-04-14 23:48 | 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 ... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-15 12:27 | ACS1986 ♦61 | 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 | 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 explic... | |
| 46876018 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-03-15 17:49 | 1 | 2017-03-16 10:29 | Bexhill-OSM ♦94 | Thanks, I wasn't aware of _link tags. I'll start using them. |
| 46159991 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-02-17 09:56 | 1 | 2017-02-17 16:07 | Yorvik Prestigitator ♦151 | 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 | 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 @ 2017-02-14 08:28 | 1 | 2017-02-14 14:15 | Chris Fleming ♦374 | 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 | Chris Fleming ♦374 | Apologies just noticed that you fixed up the name. All good! | |
| 45959770 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-02-09 23:07 | 1 | 2017-02-10 00:29 | DaveF ♦1,563 | 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 | 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 @ 2017-02-07 18:34 | 1 | 2017-02-07 20:02 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | 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 | 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, ... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-08 17:40 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | 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 notic... | |
| 4 | 2017-02-09 08:26 | 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 @ 2015-01-28 23:22 | 1 | 2017-01-25 11:00 | DaveF ♦1,563 | HiIs it construction or meadow? It can't be both. |
| 2 | 2017-01-25 11:06 | Mike Baggaley | no idea, all I did is correct a spelling mistake | |
| 3 | 2017-01-25 11:12 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Apologies. I clicked on the incorrect changeset. | |
| 45411606 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-01-23 20:29 | 1 | 2017-01-24 14:02 | SK53 ♦864 | 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 @ 2016-03-09 16:34 | 1 | 2017-01-22 10:18 | Richard ♦220 | 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 ... |
| 2 | 2017-01-22 12:51 | 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 | Richard ♦220 | 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 @ 2017-01-14 16:28 | 1 | 2017-01-15 16:23 | ndm ♦889 | 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 | 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 | ndm ♦889 | I was finishing up an edit on this road -- and found a couple of relevant photos. Have updated the name. | |
| 38295832 by Mike Baggaley @ 2016-04-04 16:42 | 1 | 2017-01-11 13:15 | Derby45 ♦9 | 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 | Mike Baggaley | OK, probably would be better as loc_ref=3. I'll change it to that. Cheers,Mike | |
| 44242482 by Mike Baggaley @ 2016-12-07 19:01 | 1 | 2016-12-07 20:56 | ndm ♦889 | 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 | 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 @ 2016-12-07 17:52 | 1 | 2016-12-07 21:05 | ndm ♦889 | 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 @ 2016-11-29 20:20 | 1 | 2016-11-30 13:58 | SK53 ♦864 | 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... |
| 28688591 by Mike Baggaley @ 2015-02-07 18:46 | 1 | 2016-11-05 00:28 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | 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 | 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.C... | |
| 3 | 2016-11-05 09:38 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | 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 @ 2016-08-31 21:12 | 1 | 2016-08-31 22:22 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | 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 | 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... | |
| 41717216 by Mike Baggaley @ 2016-08-26 15:15 | 1 | 2016-08-26 21:35 | ndm ♦889 | 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 | 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 | ndm ♦889 | 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 @ 2016-08-26 23:10 | 1 | 2016-08-27 10:10 | ndm ♦889 | Had to tweak it a tad -- both lanes were bus only. |
| 41717138 by Mike Baggaley @ 2016-08-26 15:12 | 1 | 2016-08-26 21:38 | ndm ♦889 | 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 | 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 @ 2016-08-25 12:04 | 1 | 2016-08-25 22:35 | OffTheChart ♦13 | 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 @ 2016-08-20 17:51 | 1 | 2016-08-22 18:03 | chillly ♦819 | 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 | 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 | chillly ♦819 | A changeset comment would have helped others understand what your change is about. | |
| 41449936 by Mike Baggaley @ 2016-08-14 16:28 | 1 | 2016-08-14 21:17 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | 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 @ 2016-08-07 20:38 | 1 | 2016-08-08 14:01 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | 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 | 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 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | 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 @ 2016-04-25 10:00 | 1 | 2016-04-25 21:23 | ndm ♦889 | 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 | 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 @ 2016-04-25 10:08 | 1 | 2016-04-25 21:22 | ndm ♦889 | Would be so much easier to tell what the changeset is meant to do if there was a comment. |
| 38015759 by Mike Baggaley @ 2016-03-23 09:10 | 1 | 2016-03-23 11:32 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Why did you change this from a path to a footway? |
| 2 | 2016-03-23 11:39 | 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 @ 2016-01-31 23:13 | 1 | 2016-03-09 21:46 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | 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 | 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 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | 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 | Mike Baggaley | Did you read my previous note? | |
| 5 | 2016-03-09 22:48 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Yes - although personally I tend to rely on surveys rather than websites. | |
| 6 | 2016-03-09 23:00 | 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 | 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 @ 2016-01-22 09:19 | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:50 | Yorvik Prestigitator ♦151 | 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 | 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 @ 2016-01-21 23:02 | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:44 | Yorvik Prestigitator ♦151 | 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 | 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 @ 2016-01-22 09:44 | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:40 | Yorvik Prestigitator ♦151 | 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 | 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 @ 2015-02-16 12:55 | 1 | 2015-03-05 02:05 | robert ♦234 | 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 | Mike Baggaley | oops, I think it should be OK now | |
| 28312392 by Mike Baggaley @ 2015-01-21 19:03 | 1 | 2015-01-22 00:23 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | 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 somethin... |
| 27796962 by Mike Baggaley @ 2014-12-30 11:19 | 1 | 2015-01-04 12:51 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | 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 |