| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59882394 by Gavin Meredith | 1 | 2018-06-21 12:32:14 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Gavin on ways 598186413 and 598186604 you have specified access=public which is a non-standard value. If this is a designated public footpath I suggest using foot=designated or if it is accessible by the public but is not specifically a public footpath, I siggest foot=yes. Can you review?Che... |
| 2 | 2018-06-21 13:12:39 UTC | Gavin Meredith | Hello Mike.All done. Thanks for the advice.Gavin. | |
| 59885760 by nilsph | 1 | 2018-06-21 12:28:26 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on ways 598214848 and 598214850 you have specified access=designated. This is an invalid value - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated . If this is a public footpath you need foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-06-21 20:22:53 UTC | nilsph | These parts aren't designated footpaths to my knowledge, one of them is undesignated and a footpath, the other one suitable for motor vehicles but AIUI private. I've changed these in 60055441. Mind that the paths connecting to the south of it (way 458317728 etc.) don't really match up with reality -... | |
| 59335805 by Russ McD | 1 | 2018-06-21 12:17:46 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi I see you have set access=designated on ways 591563477 and 591563483. This is an invalid value - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated . Did you mean foot=designated? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-06-22 07:22:01 UTC | Russ McD | Mike,Noted and tags removed, along with a few other ways similarly tagged.However, this mistake is easily made by users of Potlatch2 as the "access=designated" tag is offered as a choice on the drop down. Unless you had read the Wiki first, you would have no idea it was incorrect.Pe... | |
| 59347049 by DaveF | 1 | 2018-06-21 11:15:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, did you intend to indicate way 34060947 to have been closed by setting access=no? If so you need to remove foot=designated. If not, please remove access=no as in combination with highway=footway and foot=designated it leads to confusion.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-06-21 12:03:29 UTC | DaveF | It's temporarily closed for repair work of the bridge over. While it's closed it's still designated as a public footpath. | |
| 3 | 2018-06-21 12:07:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The designation is defined by designation=public_footpath and I am not suggesting it is removed. The foot=designated does need to be removed though as it overrides access=no and indicates that the path is open for walking. I also suggest adding a note to say why it is closed. | |
| 59873364 by urbigenous | 1 | 2018-06-21 11:23:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I have removed access=no from this open area as it leads to confusion in combination with highway=pedestrian and foot=pedestrian. I note that the surrounding paths have foot=customers. I would expect the paths and open areas to have the same access values. Should this be permissive or customers?... |
| 59709458 by harfus | 1 | 2018-06-21 11:07:35 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if Middlesex Passage is closed during construction, you need to remove foot=yes as this overrides access=no for pedestrians. Can you please review?Thanks,MIke |
| 59690174 by poshbakerloo | 1 | 2018-06-21 09:59:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this is now the A555, I think it should also be highway=trunk (and the adjoining sections at each end) Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 59559596 by Davidh182 | 1 | 2018-06-21 09:56:02 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this road has been downgraded from the A283, please remove the ref from the road, otherwise please revert to highway=primary - only B roads should be tagged as secondary. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_GuidelinesThanks,Mike |
| 54743011 by Baviaan | 1 | 2018-05-20 21:23:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, should amenity=parking be removed from relation 534410? You comment suggests this is no longer a car park, and it can't be both a service road and a car park.Cheers,Mike |
| 59013192 by WanderingJack | 1 | 2018-05-20 17:08:08 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I think in this change you were probably intending to indicate that the highway has one or more sidewalks alongside it. The way to do this is to use the sidewalk= key (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk). The use of footway=sidewalk is intended for a s... |
| 58935222 by Russ | 1 | 2018-05-20 11:13:41 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have marked way 4982131 (part of Kirtling Street) as private. However, it appears to have the Thames Path running along it. Can you please review whether pedestrian access should be allowed or whether the Thames Path is marked in the wrong place?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-05-20 11:20:07 UTC | Russ | It appears to be temporarily closed for the Tideway works (that'll be at least for 3-4 years I'd expect). I didn't survey the dogleg of Kirtling Street to the east so I can't confirm whether it still links up to the path/William Henry Walk there, but given the extent of the Tideway works I have a su... | |
| 58969273 by JFarnsworth | 1 | 2018-05-20 11:04:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if a road has two names then one name goes in name and the other in alt_name, as was already the case for this road. I have therefore reverted this change. You can also use name:left and name:right if the two sides of the road have different names. |
| 58391163 by zorque | 1 | 2018-05-07 00:16:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this changeset the NAPTAN data (bus stop data) for the St Hugh Of Lincoln Church stops seem to have been merged into the church and adjacent building in ways 153370370 and 153370417 and the bus stops have been lost. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-05-09 15:23:05 UTC | zorque | Hi Mike,of course, you are right. I'll revert the bus stop and correct the church building, most likely tomorrow. Thanks for highlighting.Marc | |
| 3 | 2018-05-10 22:07:33 UTC | zorque | fixed https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58862738 | |
| 58687307 by mrpacmanmap | 1 | 2018-05-06 23:43:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think the post office you have added at node 5597063344 on High Street has closed down (presumably moved to Halesowen Street). Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 58407209 by ProManglementer | 1 | 2018-05-06 14:30:01 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please note that road numbers do not go in the name field, they go in the ref field. Also, is this really part of the A3290 - if it is, then the highway should be set to primary not tertiary. Can you please review your change?Thanks,Mike |
| 58311382 by JayCBR | 1 | 2018-04-22 21:41:23 UTC | Paul Berry | The Headrow axis is not a B-road. It's not even open to all traffic. |
| 2 | 2018-04-23 07:30:37 UTC | JayCBR | its more than a b-road, its the major road in Leeds..couldnt be even secondary? | |
| 3 | 2018-04-23 08:01:09 UTC | Paul Berry | It's a C-road (not sure of unpublished number) but note that it's restricted to buses/taxis/cycles/access for most of its length. Even the Loop Road is only C-class: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4148004 | |
| 4 | 2018-04-23 14:39:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, Ways 400349313 and 454077550 have ref=A64, so either the ref is wrong or they should not be secondary. I am not local, but have been along that road and believe it has green signs, indicating it should be trunk. Can you please review these two ways?Thanks,Mike | |
| 5 | 2018-04-23 14:55:33 UTC | Paul Berry | There's possibly some confusion with recent changes regarding how OSM represents A-roads. Apologies in advance if this is already known...OSM | RealityTrunk | Primary A-Road (yellow on green signage)*Primary | Secondary/Non-Primary A-Road (black on white signage)Secondary | B-RoadUnclass... | |
| 6 | 2018-04-23 16:37:03 UTC | JayCBR | i am sorry i didnt realize there was such a restriction..if thats the case maybe the restricted section should be a service road and maybe the loop could be secondary..about the underground section of A64 i need to have some research | |
| 7 | 2018-04-23 20:50:48 UTC | JayCBR | i dont think ways 400349313 and 454077550 are parts of A64, the signs only point out where it leads (York A64), its like a side road | |
| 8 | 2018-04-24 11:03:12 UTC | Paul Berry | Those ways are signed York A64--no brackets--according to local signage on the ground. | |
| 57538751 by Charlie Harding | 1 | 2018-04-20 20:35:08 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi did you intend foot=no rather than foot=no2 on way 573229622? Is this some sort of cycle course? If so it might be better tagged as leisure=track rather than highway=cycleway. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-04-20 20:49:29 UTC | Charlie Harding | Hi Mike,Yes, it is a cycle course. Should I just replace the highway tag with leisure=track? | |
| 3 | 2018-04-20 22:47:38 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Charlie, yes. I'd also add sport=cycling to clarify that it is a cycling track.Cheers,Mike | |
| 58105272 by Zoooooooooom | 1 | 2018-04-20 20:41:00 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi is there really a camp site at this point? |
| 58237869 by NorthIsland | 1 | 2018-04-20 20:19:36 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change some ways that have highway=footway have been marked with access statements that are confusing. Way 572209865 has access=private and foot=designated; 572209861 has access=no and foot=designated. As footways only have pedestrian access (unless some other mode of transport is explic... |
| 2 | 2018-04-21 16:31:40 UTC | NorthIsland | Thanks for that. Yes, I agree, for footpaths you only have to add designation =publicfootpath if there is a sign - the rest is default. I have gone around the area and set footpaths back to default. Bit of trouble with driveways and tracks where a ROW runs along it - have to set motors (and assumed)... | |
| 57723925 by alantw | 1 | 2018-04-20 19:49:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, just wondered whether you know whether Little Studley Close and Spring Bank Road (way renamed to have both names in this change) are two names for the same road (one either side) or whether Little Studley Close is at the end of Spring Bank Road? If the road has two names, one should go in name a... |
| 57813906 by jpennycook (temporarily away) | 1 | 2018-04-16 23:06:47 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I suspect that way 402784688 should be named Wells Lane and that the "& St Georges School" part just indicates that the school is to be found down there rather than being part of the name. Can you confirm whether this is the case? (I'm assuming you are local.) I note that St George... |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 06:20:23 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | Hello Mike.Thanks for the message. The full name is shown on a street name sign, like you'd find on a normal residential street, so I thought I ought to record it on OSM in case people are looking out for the sign with the name. However, I believe the name of the road, as opposed to the name on ... | |
| 3 | 2018-04-17 16:13:08 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jon, thanks for the quick reply. I think that we should record the real name of the street rather than the including the extended detail in the name tag. Any objections if I change this and add a note saying what is on the sign?Cheers,Mike | |
| 4 | 2018-04-17 16:31:39 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | Hello Mike.Thanks for checking with me. That's fine - please go ahead.Jon | |
| 58076708 by RossA | 1 | 2018-04-17 15:01:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in the change a number of ways (31140891, 299417582, 41121952, 43462076, 5096325) have been set with foot=permissive;yes. Can you please review and set one value or the other as appropriate?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 15:53:24 UTC | RossA | Well spotted Mike - what do you use to spot this sort of thing? I’ve corrected I think but will double check when home later. | |
| 3 | 2018-04-17 16:09:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I use mkgmap to build a Garmin map from OSM data, and my build process includes checks for various things, one of which is unrecognised access values. | |
| 58148008 by Allchin | 1 | 2018-04-17 14:18:17 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have added access=public to way 575467490. this is not a valid value for access. If you mean that the road has a public footpath running along it, this should be mapped by using designation=public_footpath and foot=designated. If you mean that the way is open to all traffic, t... |
| 58138963 by drnoble | 1 | 2018-04-17 13:54:50 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see from your note that this path is not open yet, but you have bicycle=yes which in conjunction with access=no indicates that cycles can use the path but pedestrians can not - I suspect this is not what you intended. If the path is under construction, it might be better to use highway=constru... |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 16:56:48 UTC | drnoble | Thanks Mike, it was an error on my part. The path is built, but fenced off. I'm not actually sure if it will be a cycle path, it was just a tag copy/paste mistake, have resolved now | |
| 58131766 by Daveymorrisuk | 1 | 2018-04-17 13:46:07 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset you have added access=no to way 224158695, which has bicycle=yes and horse=yes. This combination indicates that bikes and horses can use the bridleway but pedestrians cannot, which seems unlikely. Can you review your change and If the bridleway has been closed for some reason, ... |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 14:01:51 UTC | Daveymorrisuk | Thanks Mike, I've corrected that now. The footpath actually runs parallel to the Bridlepath as it goes through the farmyard. Its a bit odd there and most people just take the footpath to avoid the dogs! | |
| 57808915 by BaldMapper | 1 | 2018-04-16 00:01:40 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 576409451 you have set access=public. If you mean this is a public footpath, then this should be mapped as designation=public_footpath and foot=designated. Also, the south west end does not connect to anything. Should it join the nearby track? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 57901464 by Local Mapper | 1 | 2018-04-15 23:46:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have added access=no to way 92218891 which has highway=footway and foot=yes. This is leading to confusion over whether the way has pedestrian access or not. If the footway has been closed, can you remove foot=yes and bicycle=yes, which override access=no. If the footway is ope... |
| 57609666 by driftraf | 1 | 2018-04-15 23:42:31 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, could you clarify the access you meant by adding access=private to way 59575961? This has highway=footway and foot=yes, so adding access=private has no effect as a footway already has no access other than foot and foot=yes overrides access=private for pedestrians. It leads to confusion over what... |
| 57739014 by David_GR | 1 | 2018-04-15 23:12:02 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi David,Welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point: when adding a UK footpath, bridleway or byway reference, please note that this goes in the prow_ref field rather than the name field. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_refKeep up the good work,Mike |
| 57927248 by Premsakhare | 1 | 2018-04-15 23:04:13 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I assume from this change that these roads are now constructed and that the name is no longer u/c 8/09. If possible, can you review the names of the two ways so named? Can the construction= tag also be removed?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-04-18 22:23:53 UTC | Nakaner-repair | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 58217008 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by a group of commercial editors everywhere except North and South America. They "fixed" routing "errors" but hided real errors instead of... | |
| 57570365 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-03-27 16:23:03 UTC | gurglypipe | Please add a description to your changesets, so that other people can quickly see a summary of what’s changed. Thanks! |
| 2 | 2018-03-27 16:30:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Trivial changeset. Moved it nearer the junction. | |
| 41073483 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-03-26 17:49:22 UTC | Borbus | I'm not sure about this change. I can see that it looks redundant having the name on the route and the ways, but I would argue that locally the way itself is known as Marriot's Way, rather than it being a route comprised of many anonymous ways. There is still a route called Marriot's way which somet... |
| 2 | 2018-03-26 23:37:49 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I didn't quite understand your argument, but assume you are suggesting that a series of ways that form a part of the Marriot's Way route are also themselves known as Marriot's Way locally. If this is what you mean, then the loc_name field would be the most appropriate one to use to name the way... | |
| 57358439 by thebeerglass | 1 | 2018-03-26 14:17:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. You may not be aware, but we map highway= according to what the way looks like, not its legal position. Hence a way that can be driven along would not be mapped as highway=footway, even if the legal access rights are just public footpath. In this case, as it appears t... |
| 2 | 2018-03-26 19:47:58 UTC | thebeerglass | Hi Mike, Thanks for the guidance. Trimm's Drove is only a driveable track for the first 50m from the east. Thereafter it is most certainly a narrow, muddy footpath. I live next to it so I don't want anyone thinking they can drive down it! | |
| 3 | 2018-03-26 23:13:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in that case, I suggest splitting the way so the the eastern 50m is a highway=track, and the remainder is highway=footway.Regards,Mike | |
| 57458653 by John Grubb | 1 | 2018-03-26 16:02:20 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think the access tags set on way 572389778 are incorrect as there are several tags with a value of agricultural. This value should indicate that there is a legal right for anyone to use the way for agricultural purposes, not that it is used by the owner for agricultural access. I suspect that ... |
| 2 | 2018-03-27 08:48:16 UTC | John Grubb | Thanks for that. I'll add it to the snagging list for my Bishops Lydeard project. I'm going to sort out all the schoolboy errors in one hit when I've finished making them! :D | |
| 3 | 2018-04-30 07:02:57 UTC | John Grubb | Right; I think that's all squared away now. | |
| 57498730 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-03-25 14:59:03 UTC | lakedistrict | Hi Mike, thanks for your edits around here. I guess you were walking (part of) the Dales Way? Did you see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38555464 is accessible yet or if it is still closed? Thanks |
| 2 | 2018-03-25 15:20:15 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, yes, I was walking what might be considered the first part of the Dales Way - Bowness to Burneside, then caught the train back. Very enjoyable in Sunday's snow! I didn't see whether way 38555464 was open or closed - I note that the way has access=no and foot=designated, which are contradictory f... | |
| 3 | 2018-03-25 15:42:08 UTC | lakedistrict | No worries, I'm local so I'll check it out sometime soon. | |
| 56874868 by Sidders S | 1 | 2018-03-11 12:02:45 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. I wonder if you could clarify whether way 4639166, edited in this change, allows pedestrian access or not? It is tagged with both access=private and foot=designated, which as a footway only allows pedestrian access, causes confusion as to which tag is the one intended... |
| 56904666 by Lewis_Morg | 1 | 2018-03-09 15:34:08 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Lewis, welcome to Open Street Map, I hope you are enjoying mapping. Just a small point, please note that leisure=playground is the correct tagging for a playground, and it should not have name=Playground. Only proper nouns should be used in the name field; if a feature has no name or the name is ... |
| 56998578 by Andy_W | 1 | 2018-03-09 15:08:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Andy, hope you don't mind me commenting, but access=designated is an invalid combination of tag and value. Only the specific transport modes should have a value of designated. Please see the note at the top of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-03-09 15:48:32 UTC | Andy_W | Hi Mike,Thanks for fixing. I didn't spot that in some of my recent updates.Cheers.Andy. | |
| 56906556 by Pete Owens | 1 | 2018-03-09 14:53:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Pete, I see you have added access for bicycles along the part of Village Way that |I gather is closed for construction. Do you know whether there is pedestrian access as well? If so, I suggest changing access=no to motor_vehicle=no.Cheers,Mike |
| 56823189 by Richardg6paj | 1 | 2018-03-05 21:02:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Richard, you seem to have changed parts of Messingham Road, Northfield Road and Scotter Road from trunk to Secondary, but the ref contains A159. Only B roads should have highway=secondary. If the A159 has been downgraded to a B road, please put the new ref so that the highway and ref are consiste... |
| 56814257 by Globalforester | 1 | 2018-03-05 17:13:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI welcome to OpenStreetMap. Hope you don't mind me commenting, but the name field should only contain a proper noun, and should not contain any descriptive information. If a feature has no name by which it is known, p[lease leave the name field blank.I have removed the names "Shared access... |
| 2 | 2018-03-05 18:58:01 UTC | Globalforester | Hi Mike - I guess this is my first foray into OSM and I did not spot clear guidance on the use of that field. Based on your guidance, technically I should have used "Donview access" instead of "Shared access" although the latter is the legal entity on the deeds. CheersNick | |
| 56725438 by draxus | 1 | 2018-03-05 15:51:45 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I have removed this separate bus lane as it is already tagged as psv=opposite_lane in the existing ways for Central Drive, and this seems to be a better way of tagging it (opposite_lane.Regards,Mike |
| 56556784 by Jonathan Howell | 1 | 2018-02-25 09:32:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Jonathan, hope you don't mind me commenting, but the correct way to tag a car park is with amenity=parking. I've updated way 563089943 with this tagging.Regards,Mike |
| 56159770 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-02-20 01:23:08 UTC | JayTurnr | I assume Naptan import data is important? |
| 2 | 2018-02-20 07:41:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jay, NaPTAN data is an import of public transport data from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan and should be on a node at the position of the bus stop. Not sure how the data ended up on this way.Regards,Mike | |
| 56348412 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-02-14 12:48:28 UTC | DaveF | Please don't amend entities when you've no idea of the layout. Once again it needs pointing out to you that roundabouts do not need separate junctions. Amend your practices to suit. |
| 2 | 2018-02-14 13:25:30 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I don't understand your comment. My change was to move two junctions slightly apart to comply with the guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout which state:"Important Consideration When MappingAll ways which intersect with the junction=roundabout should be... | |
| 56303923 by John Grubb | 1 | 2018-02-14 10:09:16 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi John, on way 560136472, it looks like you have set motor_vehicle=prp. Is this a mistake?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-02-14 11:53:33 UTC | John Grubb | Yes, it is. Fat-finger syndrome strikes again! Fixed. | |
| 55974533 by Pete Owens | 1 | 2018-02-05 19:43:10 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Pete, in this change way 151234397, which appears to be a motorway slip road, has had bicycle=yes added. Is this a mistake?Cheers,Mike |
| 55924441 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2018-01-31 13:23:43 UTC | GinaroZ | Can't work out what you changed here? |
| 2 | 2018-01-31 13:39:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I split closed way 123192913 in two to clarify it is not an area. Must have missed the comment. | |
| 55606801 by Trubshaw | 1 | 2018-01-23 17:18:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI please note that access=designated is not a valid combination of tag and value - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated . You need to use foot=designated for a public footpath.I have updated ways 554514038, 554514039, 554514040 and 554514041 created in this changeset.... |
| 55268365 by SK53 | 1 | 2018-01-22 11:48:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi in way 549976106 you have put foot=permissive; yes - can you confirm which is correct?ThanksMike |
| 54801468 by CartogLarry | 1 | 2018-01-22 11:47:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi in way 548254444 you have put foot=permissive; yes - can you confirm which is correct?ThanksMike |
| 55494343 by kevjs1982 | 1 | 2018-01-22 11:17:20 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 165209685, 165209689 and 165209690, you have added access=no, however this is overridden by the existing foot=permissive, so has no effect. I suggest removing the foot tags and adding a note to say why they are closed and when they are expected to reopen.Cheers,Mike |
| 55382477 by whitetop666 | 1 | 2018-01-22 08:57:41 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map.This changeset has changed some of Wolverhampton Street from secondary to primary. However, the ways also have a ref of B4587. Is this now an A road? If so, please change the ref. If it is still the B4587, please revert the highway type to secondary as per the UK map... |
| 2 | 2018-01-22 12:14:41 UTC | whitetop666 | The road has been set to how google had it, if its been changed since i updated then by all means change it. | |
| 3 | 2018-03-14 22:19:06 UTC | ToeBee | We can not use any Google data to modify OpenStreetMap. This is a copyright violation. We can only use primary sources (your own eyes) or any source of data who has given us EXPLICIT permission to use their data.Also, it seems like you deleted some data on this outline: https://www.openstreetma... | |
| 22261130 by DaveF | 1 | 2017-12-18 13:14:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, just wondered whether you know if the path has been reopened following the temporary diversion of way 106373596 some 3 years ago?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-18 13:33:43 UTC | DaveF | After 3 years I'd assume yes, but not walked that way since. Needs a survey. | |
| 37612487 by Simon Nuttall | 1 | 2017-12-17 16:53:14 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Simon, it is a couple of years since this change, but thought it would be worth asking you anyway. Relation 1215135 is named "SE Cambridge Cycle Route". I can see lots of cycleways on the Cambridge City Council web site, and it shows the ways in this relation as being cycleways. However... |
| 2 | 2017-12-17 18:02:15 UTC | Simon Nuttall | The route from Parker's Piece via Gresham Road, the Carter Bridge and on down to the Tins was branded with that name back in about 1990 when the City put in a bid to build that bridge. https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/10220/ I don't recall it ever being labelled as such on the streets. A ... | |
| 53736578 by Welshie | 1 | 2017-12-17 10:23:30 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you confirm whether "New Square Park Access Road" is the actual road name on way 161908134, or is it a description?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-17 15:33:20 UTC | Welshie | It's the description from the Road Traffic Act Regulation Act notice. Given that it's not the public highway, it probably doesn't legally need a name, but it needed some way of being legally identified. If you can find a better name for it, feel free to set the current name as an 'alt_name' tag and ... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-17 16:04:49 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Thanks. I've had a look at the consultation notice, and as you say it is a description, not a name. Presumably the road has no name or the notice would have used it. Hence I've changed the tag from name to description.Regards,Mike | |
| 53465828 by The_JF | 1 | 2017-12-17 11:10:20 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify what you mean by foot=limited on way 537845418 ?Thanks,Mike |
| 54339389 by will_p | 1 | 2017-12-17 11:05:15 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on ways 16565027, 16565029 and 16565032 you have added access=private in this changeset. However, as they have foot=permissive, the change has had no effect other than to add confusion as to whether pedestrian access is intended to be permissive or private. Can you please remove either the foot... |
| 2 | 2017-12-17 12:18:49 UTC | will_p | Thank you for pointing this out. I agree it doesn't make sense. I should have removed foot=permissive when I added access=private. Now corrected. | |
| 54052818 by Aceweo | 1 | 2017-12-17 10:31:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI can you confirm whether Grimston Park Access Road is the actual name of way 416480088? It seems more like a description to me.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-17 12:59:55 UTC | Aceweo | Mike, your quite right, I must have had a senior moment. I'll make the correction once back on my PCApologiesTony | |
| 53850510 by tms13 | 1 | 2017-12-17 10:21:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I know the tag predates this change, but are you able to confirm whether the reference on way 186530431 is correct? It is currently set to A9000, but this seems unlikely for a bus-only tertiary road.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-19 13:17:12 UTC | tms13 | I didn't tag that ref, and I was as surprised as you. But when traffic was recently diverted over the old bridge, that's what was signed, so I can now corroborate it. I think it's still operated (by FETA) on behalf of Transport Scotland (making it 'trunk' by the strict rules, but signed in white-b... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-20 13:35:20 UTC | tms13 | I've just been down to Ferrytoll - FRB is definitely signed as A9000 on the approaches to the roundabout. | |
| 53544212 by Tom Heathcote | 1 | 2017-12-17 10:16:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Tom, I see that this change has reduced Brent Street from primary to secondary between Finchley Lane and Queens Road. However, it has ref A502. If the road is not or is no longer the A502, can you please remove the ref, otherwise please revert the road to primary. Please also note that the ways a... |
| 54369549 by Moretonmill | 1 | 2017-12-13 10:29:42 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi in this changeset way 544794534 has been tagged as highway=footway, access=no, foot=permissive and name=Forestry access track. I have moved the name to the description tag, but can you confirm whether this would be better tagged as highway=track?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-13 11:16:03 UTC | Moretonmill | Hi Mike, it was created as a forestry access track but it’s now invaded with birch and pine and there’s only a narrow footpath left. Yours, Eddie | |
| 53508065 by jcs_uk | 1 | 2017-12-13 10:03:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you please clarify what you meant by access=public on way 538322682 ?(Public is not a standard value as defined at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access .)Thanks,Mike |
| 53736833 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-12-13 09:56:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 540167452 has access=block which I don't understand. Did you intend block to be in the surface tag? Or do you mean it is blocked (in which case access=no would make it clearer)?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-14 11:05:43 UTC | brianboru | MikeI'm not sure what I meant and I can't even remember if this footway is open or not so I just deleted the tagRegardsBrian | |
| 54234067 by Rag2711 | 1 | 2017-12-13 09:42:44 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify whether this is a children's playground (i.e. swings or similar) or a recreation ground (i.e. just a grassy area for general play)?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-22 18:21:17 UTC | Rag2711 | I'm sorry for a not very speedy response.Yes the place includes playground equipment. All be it very minimal, mostly exercise equipment and sadly the only swing has been vandalised. It is a playground though installed by the council. If I can work out how I will upload photos of the location.\... | |
| 53987651 by pjr10 | 1 | 2017-12-13 09:24:17 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset way 542165565 has been tagged as amenity=bank and name=ATM. I assume ATM is not actually the name of the bank. If it is a bank with an ATM, then please add atm=yes and remove the name tag. If it is just an ATM, please remove the name tag and change the amenity tag to amenity=at... |
| 54285514 by m902 | 1 | 2017-12-12 17:14:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI in this change you have added access=no to way 130805664 which has highway=foot and foot=designated. This causes confusion as we don't know whether you intended the access=no to mean that the path is closed (but as foot=designated overrides it it actually has no effect) or that you mean there is ... |
| 2 | 2017-12-12 18:29:18 UTC | m902 | Hi Mike,This is a legal public footpath (foot=designated) but it is blocked at the stream because there is no bridge (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5127826625) and there is also no stile over the fence on the west side of the stream (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4724899564). With the agre... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-12 18:43:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Martin, thanks for the reply. I suggest removing foot=designated on the two ways either side of the stream. This would leave the path showing as a public footpath, but also show there is no access to it because of the access=no tag. I also suggest adding a note to the two ways explaining the situ... | |
| 4 | 2017-12-12 22:56:36 UTC | m902 | Done. Still not really quite right though, as access=no means there is no LEGAL right of access, whereas in this case the legal right remains but you can't physically access it. | |
| 53767142 by AJR-GB | 1 | 2017-12-12 17:07:00 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, I notice you have updated way 135322328 as part of this change. It appears to have designation=public_bridleway, but horse=no and foot=no, which doesn't seem like a valid combination. I realise these values predate your change, but if you are local, can you check whether this is really a public... |
| 2 | 2017-12-12 19:18:55 UTC | AJR-GB | Hi Mike, I am local and will do but will be in the new year as I am traveling until then. Thanks | |
| 54211637 by Mike Parfitt | 1 | 2017-12-12 16:25:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Mike, way 55424394 also has the South West Coast Path running along it. |
| 53668679 by Joe E | 1 | 2017-12-12 16:13:34 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 43330779 which was marked as access=no in this changeset appears to have two cycle routes and one hiking route running along it. If the access restriction is only for motor vehicles, please change access=no to motor_vehicle=no. If the way is currently closed for some reason, please add a not... |
| 2 | 2017-12-27 20:25:46 UTC | Joe E | The way is closed and the reason correctly tagged as construction=yes as per https://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/weekly-roadworks-reportthough the re-opening date was unavailable at the time. | |
| 54349008 by Mike Parfitt | 1 | 2017-12-12 16:08:38 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Mike, way 177964373 which you have marked as private appears to have the South West Coast Path running along it, suggesting it should have foot=yes, or foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-13 14:29:24 UTC | Mike Parfitt | Given that the nodes of the way defining Passage Road were shared with those of the South West Coast Path, I had assumed that it would have been a duplication to also mark Passage Road for foot access, but I have just done so. | |
| 54081472 by michaelinredhill | 1 | 2017-12-12 14:10:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, did you intend to rename way 141700425 from Clayhall Lane to way 0 in this change? It looks like it is probably a mistake.Cheers,Mike |
| 54406368 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-12-06 22:02:28 UTC | matt_twam_asi | Hi Mike,I've carried out a bit more work on these three buildings (changeset 54415729 if you want to check)- Added smoking=yes to way 544250782 from the node that was deleted in this changeset.- Merged the Andrew Lyons node into way 544250762.- changed ways 544250762 and 70007760 to buildi... |
| 2 | 2017-12-07 08:31:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Excellent, looks good to me! | |
| 53934518 by ndm | 1 | 2017-12-06 09:31:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are pedestrians and cycles allowed on any parts of this road? If so, can you change access=no to vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no as appropriate?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-06 22:50:58 UTC | ndm | If there were pedestrian access it would have a sidewalk tag. | |
| 53413440 by MacLondon | 1 | 2017-11-03 09:11:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 537316355 you have set foot=crossing, which looks like a mistake. Can you please check? Also, can you clarify foot=unofficial on way 536798839? The latter is tagged as a cycleway, and I believe that pedestrians are permitted on cycleways unless there is an explicit no pedestrians sign, i... |
| 2 | 2017-11-04 20:53:49 UTC | MacLondon | Hi Mike,I've corrected way 537316355 to footway=crossing.The foot=unoffical was inherited from way 243330519, from which I have now removed it. Way 536798839 itself is part of a segregated section of CS8, with a subway separating it from the footway. It is marked with a blue cycle only sign, w... | |
| 51509558 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-11-02 17:46:58 UTC | SK53 | So you are also the person silently removing my bridge=footbridge tags too. Can you at the very least ask about these before changing them. |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 17:54:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Apologies for inadvertently failing to add a comment on the occasional change. If a way has highway=footway and bridge=yes then we know it is a footbridge. | |
| 3 | 2017-11-06 10:17:09 UTC | SomeoneElse | Mike,Changing "bridge=<value>" to "bridge=yes" removes descriptive information from OSM. Please don't do it. Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. | |
| 53418470 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-11-02 09:19:07 UTC | will_p | Hi Mike,I object to the change you have made here. You have changed bridge=chain to bridge=yes. How has the data been improved by this? You appear to only be stripping out information. I don't believe there is any consensus that bridges must only be tagged with bridge=yes. bridge=chain identifie... |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 09:26:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Will, the reason for doing this is that bridge=chain is not rendered as a bridge by OSM, and is not included in the list of approved values. The bridge has a note on it saying it is a chain so no information has been lost.Regards,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-11-02 13:37:22 UTC | Richard | note= tags aren't machine-readable - so in practice, moving things from a machine-readable tag to a note means that they are practically lost to all consumers.At the very least, this should have been moved to bridge:structure= rather than a note= .There is no "list of approved values&qu... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-02 13:39:46 UTC | SK53 | On the contrary information has been lost: changing a tag to a note is always information loss. You are changing tagging for the renderer, a practice which has been discouraged for many years. Instead you should a) file an issue with the rendering github repository and b) improve the wiki documentat... | |
| 5 | 2017-11-02 13:43:43 UTC | SomeoneElse | To be honest, as there's no highway or railway over it I'd add the "man_made=bridge" object (as a closed way) if possible.It'd donkey's years since I've been to the Priest House though, so my memory isn't up to it. | |
| 6 | 2017-11-02 15:56:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges. For example, there were quite a few bridge=culvert tags which on examination mostly turned out to be waterways below roads and should not have had ... | |
| 7 | 2017-11-02 17:37:33 UTC | SomeoneElse | > The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges.Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L506 | |
| 8 | 2017-11-02 17:46:02 UTC | Mike Baggaley | >Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:What you have actually done there is build your list of 'approved' values :) | |
| 9 | 2017-11-02 17:50:24 UTC | Richard | > it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridgesThat's a genuine issue, but one which would be better fixed by removing the not-actually-a-bridge values than by removing the actually-a-bridge values. ;) | |
| 10 | 2017-11-02 17:53:59 UTC | SK53 | No, he's built a list of values which he finds useful. One of the main points of OSM is to allow the description of the unusual & idiosyncratic because a rigid list of approved values inevitably cannot cope. People enforcing a set of values devalues what OSM is about. For instance you have chang... | |
| 11 | 2017-11-03 12:27:53 UTC | SomeoneElse | Yes - what SK53 has said is correct. It's probably clearer to look at some of the other examples in the same file (barriers, shops, offices). For example, depending on the application it might make sense to render or otherwise process a cycle_barrier the same as a motorcycle_barrier or it absolute... | |
| 53431171 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-11-02 10:34:47 UTC | OffTheChart | I see you've been removing names from my hard work identifying all the types of WW2 Bunkers on Jersey. Can I ask why? From previous discussion it seems you're heavily focussed on getting the database "correct", but this is spoiling the usefullness of the standard website map. I have been t... |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 11:26:04 UTC | OffTheChart | Partial apologies, if you've only touched the ones named "bunker", as you've undone less of my work than I initially thought. But I still maintain that explorers using the map would be interested to see that the unspecified bunkers are indeed bunkers, as there's no other indication on the ... | |
| 3 | 2017-11-02 16:32:37 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, moving the bunker information from the name field to the specific tag seemed to be improving the level of information, not 'undoing your work'. However, I did not realise that the standard OSM map doesn't render military=bunker. Ideally we should get this functionality added to the standard ren... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-02 18:06:42 UTC | OffTheChart | Thanks for your reply. If we can just leave things as they are for now, please, as that seems easier and best all around! Cheers | |
| 53201421 by AJR-GB | 1 | 2017-10-29 01:12:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset way 37132157 which is tagged as a public footpath has had foot=no set. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 01:18:44 UTC | Mike Baggaley | There seem to be several other ways that also have odd looking access tags. | |
| 3 | 2017-10-31 08:12:57 UTC | AJR-GB | Thanks Mike, have updated changeset way 37132157, it is listed as a path rather than footpath but have updated foot=yes. Will review the others again this week. thanks. | |
| 4 | 2017-10-31 08:17:26 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Sorry, I was unclear, I meant it has designation=public_footpath, which should imply foot=designated. | |
| 5 | 2017-10-31 08:43:57 UTC | AJR-GB | Thanks for the clarification, i will double check | |
| 53159064 by Norfolkadam | 1 | 2017-10-30 20:26:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 534324576 and some adjoining ways have been created with highway=footway + access=private + foot=yes. This is leading to confusion as to whether or not you intended there to be public pedestrian access. Footways by default only allow pedestrian access. Can you please either remove access=pri... |
| 52472628 by jempi | 1 | 2017-10-30 19:24:43 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, pedestrian access on way 363788759 has been changed to permissive in this changeset. However, the way also has designation=public_footpath. and these two together are not a valid combination. Can you please checkwhich is incorrect?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-31 06:54:52 UTC | jempi | My error indeed. Met the farmer when lost the path. Nice chap! | |
| 52436837 by Stonemill1 | 1 | 2017-10-30 18:25:12 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM. In this change you have added access=no to way 290157585 which had highway=footway and foot=yes. This has no effect other than to make it unclear whether you intended to prevent pedestrian access but omitted to change the foot tag. For highway=footway, all other forms of transpor... |
| 48666498 by Robert Whittaker | 1 | 2017-05-18 13:43:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 493393332 added in this change has highway=no, which doesn't seem to be correct. Can you take a look at it?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-18 16:54:02 UTC | Robert Whittaker | I'm not sure exactly what you think is wrong here? Given the previously mapped path follows the desire line across the field, with some evidence of use from Bing imagery, I assume that the path on the ground indeed follows that route.But this route does not follow the legal definitive line of th... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-17 19:57:16 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Robert, there is no other way in the UK with tag highway=no, so I suggest just removing the highway tag. I have moved the Icknield Way route from this way to the actually walked path, as walking routes need to be able to be walked.Personally I'm not sure that there is much value in recording... | |
| 4 | 2017-09-19 13:26:44 UTC | Robert Whittaker | There are actually quite a few other ways tagged with highway=no in the UK: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/highway=noIf the route available on the ground is significantly different (to the point where it would be clearly incorrect to gat either one as the other), then I think both shou... | |
| 5 | 2017-10-29 17:54:43 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Robert, apologies for the late reply - I was away on holiday. There do seem to be more ways with this tag than I had realised (most of them with your name against them). Not sure why only this one was flagged up in my map build process. I have noticed that highway=no is in the deprecated features... | |
| 6 | 2017-10-30 08:42:41 UTC | Robert Whittaker | Yes Rjw62 on the wiki is me. I wouldn't take the wiki as gospel -- it's as much to document current practice as it is to set out guidelines. In particular, there appears to be little information there about how or why highway=no is marked as deprecated. From what is on the wiki, I would suspect that... | |
| 51983132 by jpennycook (temporarily away) | 1 | 2017-10-29 16:05:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, the change to way 146988534 seems to have lost the foot/horse/bicycle tags and added motor_vehicle=seasonal. Can you please review the non vehicular access? Also, seasonal restrictions are best added using the :conditional suffix (e.g. motor_vehicle:conditional) - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.... |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 17:07:28 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | Hello Mike.Thanks for your message. I've replaced the missing access tags which I had removed incorrectly. Your message gave me an excuse to check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom again.Regarding the motor_vehicle restriction - I a... | |
| 3 | 2017-10-29 17:13:51 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | fixed in changesets #53347402 and #53346966 | |
| 53164508 by Dr-Mx | 1 | 2017-10-29 01:16:40 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI in this changeset way 202360158 has been tagged as foot=no, bicycle=no when it is also tagged as a public bridleway. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 11:03:46 UTC | Dr-Mx | *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit osm.org | |
| 3 | 2017-10-29 11:38:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Alex, a public bridleway is legally open to cyclists and pedestrians, and is normally signed with the words "public bridleway". I suspect in this case, the way is probably not legally a public bridleway, in which case it should have the highway=bridleway tag, but not designation=public_... | |
| 4 | 2017-10-29 15:00:57 UTC | Dr-Mx | *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit osm.org | |
| 5 | 2017-10-29 15:39:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Alex, on the map shown, the bridleway and cycleway loop are shown as dotted lines, which according to the key is a licensed/permissive bridleway and hence they are not public bridleways and should not have the designation tag at all. I'm very pleased to see a council not only providing this info... | |
| 6 | 2017-10-29 15:59:59 UTC | Dr-Mx | *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit osm.org | |
| 53064943 by titocalata | 1 | 2017-10-28 22:45:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you review the addition of access=no to this way? I suspect that this may not be correct. Firstly it is denying pedestrian access. Secondly, the comment suggests that the road is closed due to roadworks, however, it still has psv=yes, taxi=yes (which is superfluous as taxi is included in psv... |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 11:45:48 UTC | titocalata | Hi Mike, Thanks for your comment. The road is close to all traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, busses, etc. Only work access is allowed. Do I need to change the taxi/psv/tourist bus manually or it is an easier way to do this?Thanks, | |
| 3 | 2017-10-29 15:15:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, yes you need to change the psv and other tags manually - I'm not aware of any other mechanism you can use. You could also consider changing to highway=construction - this would clarify the position and make it more likely that the road will have its status reverted once the roadworks are complet... | |
| 52219215 by drnoble | 1 | 2017-10-29 01:22:38 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, FYI adding access=no does not have any effect on a footway that has foot=yes because the foot tag overrides the access one. If you need to show the footpath as closed, you need to change the other access tags, rather than add access=no. Can you please review your change?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 12:06:16 UTC | drnoble | Thanks Mike, I assume you mean for routing foot=yes overrides access=no. Are you suggesting that I should change the bicycle=yes and foot=yes tags? Should these also be set to no, or removed? | |
| 3 | 2017-10-29 15:10:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Yes foot=* overrides access=*. If the path is closed, and is going to be for quite some time, then I would not add the access tag at all, but would change the foot and bicycle tags to no, and add a note to say this is a temporary closure and giving some idea of the reopening date. Alternatively, the... | |
| 53092143 by michaelvipond | 1 | 2017-10-29 10:49:47 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to open Street Map. Can you clarify whether way 533758452 is a reservoir or a pond, as you seem to have tagged it as name=Reservoir + water=pond. Please remove the name tag unless the water has a real name. If it is a reservoir, use water=reservoir. Happy mapping,Mike |
| 52696816 by Wm S | 1 | 2017-10-29 10:39:03 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point: when adding features you need to choose the appropriate tagging, rather than just naming them. The name tag should only be used to add a proper noun. For example, a tennis court should be tagged as leisure=pitch + sport=tennis rather than name=tenni... |
| 52981902 by Pete Owens | 1 | 2017-10-29 00:25:02 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 175638841 has access=no, but has the North Cheshire Way along it. Can you check whether it is open to pedestrians?Thanks,Mike |
| 53178122 by etgg | 1 | 2017-10-29 00:18:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, is Tot Hill an alternative name for Leech Lane on way 534545565? If so, it should go in alt_name, rather than in brackets after the name. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 52470841 by smb1001 | 1 | 2017-10-29 00:15:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are Clare Bank and Dere Street alternative names for the same road? If so, name should be set to one of them and alt_name to the other. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-31 14:22:32 UTC | smb1001 | I've had a look at other sources and relabelled the route from Whittonstall to Ebchester. Dere Street is the name of the Roman Road so only applies to the parts that intersect with the road. Chare Bank is the official name in Ebchester, but I can't see if it extends beyond the bridge. | |
| 3 | 2017-11-06 10:24:40 UTC | SomeoneElse | So should e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4045056 be renamed back to Chare Bank? It's a few years since I drove up there, but I don't remember seeing any Dere Street signage (though it's memorable as a "long and straight road").Best Regards,Andy | |
| 4 | 2017-11-06 10:42:20 UTC | smb1001 | The Ordnance Survey only lists the name Chare Bank in Ebchester itself - well before it reaches the bridge. It then lists B6309 after that. In addition it gives the name as Fine Lane when it turns north temporarily. On the straight part from there to Whittonstall it calls it Dere Street and B6309. A... | |
| 52907374 by Dkeith | 1 | 2017-10-23 07:26:11 UTC | BCNorwich | Hi, I noticed that this road section you added to the database :- "Way: Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (532376490)" is a duplication of the existing way. |
| 2 | 2017-10-23 12:51:11 UTC | Dkeith | apologies. still learning.Thinks the road is on a slight different path.road is still covered in cones.If you could fix i would be obliged | |
| 3 | 2017-10-23 16:56:32 UTC | BCNorwich | No problem, the duplicate section is now removed.I'm still learning after several years mapping, OSM is continuously evolving so there's always something new. If I can help at all please just ask. Regards Bernard | |
| 4 | 2017-10-29 00:01:07 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I know you didn't add the name, but name=C5K doesn't look like a real name. Should this be loc_name="C5K Banchory-Devenick Road" instead?Cheers,Mike | |
| 5 | 2017-10-29 07:45:43 UTC | BCNorwich | Hi Mike Baggaley,You are correct, it wasn't me and yes it seems wrong.I looked up Aberdeenshire list of streets ( http://publications.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/dataset/c993f625-37ad-438a-bd28-5afe7ca6a5bc/resource/58d8fd38-2b20-45dd-9f1b-71ce210bba3a/download/south-highways-list.pdf )which indicate... | |
| 53186451 by tomrobin29 | 1 | 2017-10-28 23:12:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify whether way 534612905 (Buckleigh Road) is the B3236? If so, the road should be secondary rather than tertiary. Can you please either remove the ref or change the highway to tertiary?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 08:23:57 UTC | tomrobin29 | Hi MikeI didn’t create the information or the way, I have only added a tag for the speed limits. But I shall have a look. | |
| 52997393 by chessrat | 1 | 2017-10-28 23:08:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI I see that way 230135072 and adjoining have been downgraded from primary to tertiary, apparently following the opening of a bypass. If this is correct, please remove the A6136 ref. If this is still the A6136, please return to primary. The adjoining trunk link way also looks suspect as trunk links... |
| 52478086 by Rick Wiles | 1 | 2017-10-28 22:31:28 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think some of the tags on this guided busway need to be checked.Firstly, the name Guided Busway seems to be unlikely to be the real name, it seems to be more like a description. If there is no real name, the name tag should be left empty.Secondly, construction=guided_busway + highway=r... |
| 52679481 by ACS1986 | 1 | 2017-10-28 22:21:41 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think way 530512895 should have vehicle=no rather than access=no unless there is specifically a pedestrian prohibition. Can you check?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 07:32:36 UTC | ACS1986 | Hi Mike No need to check; it is definitely a vehicular restriction not a pedestrian one. I've changed the tag. Good luck to any pedestrians brave enough to walk through the middle of the road junction!Kind regards,Adam | |
| 51880258 by fcrump | 1 | 2017-09-11 13:13:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, High Weald Landscape Trail is the name of a route, and the individual paths making up the route should not have this name. YThe ways already have a route relation with this name attached. Although these routes are not shown on the standard OSM map, you can see them on waymarkedtrails.orgPlease... |
| 2 | 2017-09-16 10:53:55 UTC | fcrump | Mike, I have looked at this and given it some thought. I initially added names to paths as some were already there and I found it useful to be able to trace the route on OSM. I notice that you have removed a lot of names from long distance trails and in some cases people have re-added them as presum... | |
| 3 | 2017-09-16 11:46:06 UTC | fcrump | Mike, Following further investigation, I accept that ways should not generally be named with the route they are on. It's a shame the standard rendering of OSM does not display the name of the route, and there is no generally available 'hiking' OSM map. | |
| 4 | 2017-09-16 13:30:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Frazer, the hiking.waymarkedtrails.org map is the OSM hiking map intended for hiking. It uses the underlying OSM data and shows the hiking and walking routes on it. I'm not sure if there are any other differences - the rendering of most things looks to be extremely similar.Cheers,Mike | |
| 51872110 by will_p | 1 | 2017-09-11 13:55:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Will, I see you have changed tunnel=yes to tunnel=underpass. I can find no mention of tunnel=underpass as an approved value in the wiki, and the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Subway indicates that tunnel=yes is the correct value. Can you please explain why you think tunnel=underpass... |
| 2 | 2017-09-11 15:05:03 UTC | will_p | I reverted your change because it stripped out information. Just because a tag isn't documented on the wiki, does not mean its use is not allowed, and it certainly does not permit you to randomly swoop down and remove it. OSM mappers thankfully aren't limited to a list of 'approved' tags.Adding ... | |
| 51889816 by Ted Pottage | 1 | 2017-09-11 13:43:51 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Ted, I notice that in adding way 523019758, you have tagged it as a building with a name of Church. To add a church, please use amenity=place_of_worship and religion=christian. If the building is no longer used as a church, the best tagging is to use building=church instead.Regards,Mike |
| 51881014 by TJS | 1 | 2017-09-11 13:39:31 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, why do you think a descriptive name is required? We know it is a windmill from its tagging. Name tags should be proper nouns, such as "Skidby Windmill". If the feature has no name or it is not known, it should be left blank. Please see the "Name is the name only" section at h... |
| 2 | 2017-09-11 14:17:35 UTC | TJS | The 'Name' is required because the Windmill icon is not rendered in all the different formats that OSM maps are presented in, by all means call it Avoncroft Windmill if you want to, although personally I like to keep text as concise as possible, as are the other buildings on this site, i.e. Prefab,... | |
| 51765288 by Chay Farzaneh | 1 | 2017-09-07 11:10:27 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review the access=no tag on way 454033061 - I would expect this should be either motor_vehicle=no if cyclists are allowed along or vehicle=no otherwise (i.e. allowing pedestrians).Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-09-07 12:31:31 UTC | Chay Farzaneh | Hi Sorry did this in a rush I've allowed foot and bicycles now. ThanksChay | |
| 51586499 by Ascent | 1 | 2017-08-31 13:06:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on footway 520047037, access=private and foot=yes are both set, leading to confusion about whether you intended the pedestrian access to be private (in which case it would be better to remove foot=yes) or not (in which case it would be better to remove access=private). Also, adjoining way 520045... |
| 51535192 by wiggly | 1 | 2017-08-30 09:58:58 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see you seem to be undecided how to tag several nodes with names like GNB sniper. Please do not tag them with incorrect data just to get them to show on the OSM map. I'm guessing GNB is ground nesting bird - if these are bird hides, then I suggest using leisure=bird_hide. Please also avoid usi... |
| 51544076 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-08-29 19:50:19 UTC | DaveF | Why didn't you add the correct church title? |
| 2 | 2017-08-29 19:55:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Dave, I didn't know what the proper name was.Regards,Mike | |
| 51486639 by Ashton Fairfield | 1 | 2017-08-28 12:37:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, is way 519115289 actually named Draycott Terrace Back Access the name seems more like a description? Also, maxspeed=>5 looks as if it might be a typo.Regards,Mike |
| 51387341 by ABZ_OSM | 1 | 2017-08-24 20:10:13 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, we already know that the pitches are tennis and football from the sport tag. Please do not add descriptive names like "tennis court" or "football pitch". The name field should only be used to add proper nouns such as "Aberporth Tennis Club".Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-24 20:30:39 UTC | ABZ_OSM | Hi Mike,You know that. But this project is not necessarily about what you know.Efforts here are as part of a community empowerment project. Many people who live locally and walk or drive past that park every day, don't even know it's name widely, as it is not really listed much anywhere. So it's... | |
| 51376741 by krd_mapper | 1 | 2017-08-24 17:25:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI I realise you have simply split part of the Black Brook Way footpath to add a bridge, but assume you have some knowledge of the area. This path has foot=public on each segment, which is not a valid value. Are you in a position to correct this?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-24 18:34:37 UTC | krd_mapper | Thanks Mike. Yes, I work for Charnwood Borough Council so am familiar with the area. Well spotted on the footpath tags, I'll sort them out when I get a chance. Regards...Kev | |
| 51362866 by John Grubb | 1 | 2017-08-24 17:21:40 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, on ways 77513243 and 77513309 you seem to have added access=no and set motor_vehicle=official. "Official" is not an approved value - I think the correct values should be access not set and motor_vehicle=no. If you set access=no this also denies access to pedestrians and cyclists. If cy... |
| 2 | 2017-10-21 18:28:11 UTC | John Grubb | I could have sworn I read that value in the wiki somewhere but it's not on the access= page, so - every day's a school day!These two tracks are signed as being for emergency access to the A30 only with red "prohibition" format signs. Non-emergency access by non-official vehicles or per... | |
| 51384849 by kevjs1982 | 1 | 2017-08-24 17:12:42 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I'm guessing that this change is intended to remove access due to redevelopment of the bus station, with a number of ways having access=no added. However, where there are specific transport modes specified, these override access=no, so for example footways 16535485 and 169581775 which have foot=... |
| 51343006 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-08-23 17:28:13 UTC | sdoerr | Should node 528921324 be leisure=pitch? |
| 2 | 2017-08-23 17:31:46 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Oops, yes. Will correct! Thanks for letting me know.Cheers,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-08-23 17:43:20 UTC | sdoerr | Glad to be of service! However, I think you have now accidentally overwritten 'sport' with 'fix typo', presumably intended as a changeset comment.Steve | |
| 4 | 2017-08-23 18:20:20 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Doh! Give me a brain. Hopefully correct now. | |
| 51289958 by digitalbyron | 1 | 2017-08-22 13:32:34 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point - when adding features you need to specify the details of the feature rather than setting a name. For a post box, set amenity=post_box (and do not name it as Post Box, only name if it has a proper name). I have changed this one.Happy mapping,M... |
| 51286306 by markbeverley | 1 | 2017-08-22 13:17:36 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see you have added access=no to footway 223062606, which also has foot=permissive. If you intended this to mean that there should be no pedestrian access, then you need to remove foot=permissive which overrides access=no. If you intended this to mean that there is no other access than foot, th... |
| 2 | 2017-10-03 15:48:46 UTC | markbeverley | Hi Mike, thanks for the info. I have updated the relevant paths - feel free to check. They are National Trust footpaths so permissive and foot only. | |
| 51149076 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-08-17 10:23:09 UTC | chillly | The name on the board above the shop front is 'Chemist'. I surveyed it and it is still so.Please don't just armchair this stuff - check first!I will revert your change. |
| 2 | 2017-08-17 10:36:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The name is not Chemist, it is P. Rowbotham Dispensing Chemist according to http://www.nhs.uk/Services/pharmacies/Overview/DefaultView.aspx?id=5007. | |
| 3 | 2017-08-17 11:07:24 UTC | chillly | The name on the shop says 'Chemist'. I know that because I have been there. You cannot use copyright sources to update the name. I will revert your change and ask the DWG to intervene if you use copyright sources in OSM again. | |
| 4 | 2017-08-17 11:09:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | You will find his name is also on the front of the shop. | |
| 5 | 2017-08-17 11:10:27 UTC | chillly | Which is why I added the name as the operator. | |
| 6 | 2017-08-17 11:19:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I suggest in the spirit of compromise the name be set to either P Rowbotham Chemist. or just P Rowbotham. The name of the business is clearly not Chemist. | |
| 7 | 2017-08-17 11:27:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I also note that the NHS Choices data is made available under the Open Government Licence - see http://www.nhs.uk/aboutNHSChoices/aboutnhschoices/how-we-perform/Pages/datasets.aspx. | |
| 8 | 2017-08-17 11:33:14 UTC | chillly | Wow, just how far are you going with this?Read the link again. DOWNLOADED files are OGL, the web page you directed me to is copyright. I doubt anyone in the NHS would care, but you were prepared to use a copyright source before you then checked to try to climb out of the hole you just dug. J... | |
| 51116574 by jim197 | 1 | 2017-08-15 14:14:15 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 515616161 you have set access=residents. Please use access=private for roads that can only be accessed by residents. "private" will be interpreted by routing software as it is a standard value, whereas "residents" will be ignored as it is non-standard. You could add a ... |
| 2 | 2017-08-15 14:19:45 UTC | jim197 | Fair enough. I only used it because it was an option offered by iD. I will switch to 'private'.Jim | |
| 3 | 2017-08-15 15:01:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Interesting, I hadn't realised it was an option in iD (I can't get on with it). I see there was a proposal to add access=resident (not access=residents) back in 2011, but it was never adopted.Mike | |
| 4 | 2017-08-15 15:12:01 UTC | jim197 | It turns out iD isn't even consistent with itself. I now notice that its pull-down menu of access tag values in the 'All tags' section includes 'residents', but its pull-down menu of access tag values in the 'All fields' section doesn't! Sadly I was going by the former, silly me.Jim | |
| 51118678 by Russ McD | 1 | 2017-08-15 14:10:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Russ, in this change you seem to have added access=designated to way 324329569. This is an invalid value for access= and should only be used for specific transport modes such as foot=designated for a public footpath. As the road leads to a caravan site, I would expect that it should be access=pri... |
| 2 | 2017-08-15 21:29:39 UTC | Russ McD | Thanks Mike,Yes, my mistake - the Potlatch hint was a bit confusing and after reading the Wiki, have changed it to Private as you suggest.Rgds. | |
| 51075572 by Setithing | 1 | 2017-08-14 11:15:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 515159066 added in this change has rather confusing access tags. It is a footway, so by default the only access it has is for pedestrians. Tag access=no has been set, which changes pedestrian access to no and has no other effect. It also has foot=designated which enables pedestrian access ag... |
| 2 | 2017-08-14 18:03:41 UTC | Setithing | Hello,Sorry for that. I have amended the tags and added the fix me as you suggested. There is more mapping of foot paths to be done which is why it stops. I will avoid not joining footpaths in the future.Thank you for letting me know.Tom | |
| 51027821 by PeterPan99 | 1 | 2017-08-13 22:04:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please do not name highways with names such as Bridge 85A. This is incorrect. Firstly 85A is not a name, it is a reference. Secondly, the reference for a bridge goes in the bridge:ref field and the bridge name goes in bridge:name so that the road name can be correctly shown in the name field.\... |
| 2 | 2017-08-14 09:58:40 UTC | PeterPan99 | Hi Mike,If I delete the names (in the case of footbridges) and revert to the road names (for roads), how do I make the Bridge Ref display on the standard view of the map, please?I only started adding / changing the names to get them to display and to give consistency after I saw some with no nam... | |
| 3 | 2017-08-14 10:38:51 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Peter, I believe you are correct that bridge:ref is not rendered on the standard OSM map (the bridges in question had bridge_ref which was an older convention). However, incorrect data should not be set simply to get the standard map to display something in a particular way. You may be interested... | |
| 51059042 by Pink Duck | 1 | 2017-08-13 21:48:30 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review your change of way 59136283 which has removed motor_vehicle=no and replaced it with access=no. This change denies pedestrian access and bicycle access and I believe there are no such restrictions on this road.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-14 06:43:35 UTC | Pink Duck | Good spot, seems I tagged that erroneously thinking it was only bus/taxis/cycle but the restrictive sign is indeed just for motor vehicles. | |
| 50943658 by msevilla00 | 1 | 2017-08-08 13:36:04 UTC | msevilla00 | I edited using this overpass query:http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qSrand following this OSM Wiki advice:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Walesand as you could see in Streets:https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/BVAjyV5Yt6hediIk7Lqv4w |
| 2 | 2017-08-09 16:41:50 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, it is incorrect to a set the name field in the format "Welsh Name/English Name". If a name has two language variants, use name:cy for the Welsh and name:en for the English, and choose one of the two names for the name field, preferably the one which is the more commonly used. Many of t... | |
| 3 | 2017-08-09 21:57:05 UTC | msevilla00 | I disagree with you.If you please read the wiki you will read how to tag in multilingual situations.First, "name" tag could be use as you can see in street sings [1]. You can check on Mapillary how are labelled [2][3]Second, "Welsh name / English name" label for "... | |
| 4 | 2017-08-09 22:45:36 UTC | msevilla00 | I traslated this topic to the mailining list for General discussion for users in Great Britain:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-August/020465.htmlPlease, consider to joint the conversation there to argue within the British community.Cheers | |
| 5 | 2017-08-09 22:57:20 UTC | alejandroscf | Hi! I agree with Miguel, if the official name is both Welsh and English it's OK to set the name to "Welsh Name/English Name" and also tag it with the correct localized tags.Best regards,Alejandroscf | |
| 6 | 2017-08-10 06:22:57 UTC | escada | I cannot comment on the specific situation in Wales, but in Brussels, Belgium we have a similar situation. All streets have a Dutch and a French name. Neither one is more important than the other. We use name:fr - name:nl in the name field. Although we accept to opposite order as well.We even have... | |
| 7 | 2017-08-10 11:48:13 UTC | trigpoint | Whilst in the past I have generally used the first name on the sign (usually name:cy) as name I am coming around to this way of thinking so do not disagree with the changes made by Miguel.The norm in Wales is to have both names on the sign, much like in Brussels, even in Maelor Saesneg / English... | |
| 8 | 2017-08-10 16:54:21 UTC | RobJN | Whilst we are having this conversation, can we agree the format. I see 3 choices:"Morfa Mawr / Queen's Road""Morfa Mawr - Queen's Road""Morfa Mawr;Queen's Road"The Belgium community uses the second, the use of ";" in the third is well established. ... | |
| 9 | 2017-08-10 17:08:54 UTC | trigpoint | " / " is used throughout Wales in these cases and therefore has usage and momentum.It is the one I would favour as it is clearly a separator. A hyphen could be easily confused. | |
| 10 | 2017-08-10 19:38:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Quoting from the Wales tagging guidelines, at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names "As such, I reckon that you should set the name tag to the Welsh name in areas where the Welsh language has a high concentration of native speakers, and use name:en for the English name in such ... | |
| 11 | 2017-08-14 20:36:09 UTC | msevilla00 | Hello again,If you came now to this discussion you may notice something happens in the wiki. A British user changed it after the discussion in the talk-gb mailing list:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-August/020493.htmlI disagree with the change and I consider it arbi... | |
| 50462834 by JamesKingdom | 1 | 2017-08-09 21:52:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi James, can you check the post office you added (node 4985231337) in this changeset? I believe the one in High Street closed in 2016 - perhaps it is a sorting office?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-09 22:12:49 UTC | JamesKingdom | Hi Mike,I think it too may have closed, but there must have been something there for me to add it from my visit.I plan to revisit hopefully in the next few days, and I will check then.Thanks,James | |
| 50941036 by the1simon | 1 | 2017-08-09 16:50:17 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, footway 6233340 has had access=no added in this change. However, as the way has foot=yes, access=no has no effect. I suggest either removing foot=yes or removing access=no and setting foot=no if the footway is closed.Regards,Mike |
| 50888347 by SomeoneElse | 1 | 2017-08-07 13:06:58 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is way 342863745 really named Bus Link? If this is not a proper name, please remove it. If it is, I suggest adding a note to say it really is the name.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-07 13:28:59 UTC | SomeoneElse | Yes, it really is called that. | |
| 50804704 by smb1001 | 1 | 2017-08-04 14:14:47 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi in ways 512562914, 512562912 and 512562910 you have specified access=designated. This is not a valid value. You should only put designated for individual transport modes, e.g. for a public footpath you need to put foot=designated (and ideally designation=public_footpath as well).Regards,Mik... |
| 50427634 by Mauls | 1 | 2017-08-03 15:12:38 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this changeset you appear to have named way 63944394 as "Recreation Ground", which seems more like a description of where it leads. Is this road really named that? If so, I suggest adding a note to say it is really the name, otherwise, please delete the name.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-03 15:19:15 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Also way 63944395 has been named Rifle Range - I suggest Shrivenham Smallbore Rifle Club, if that is what it is (I don't know where it is located) and add sport=shooting. | |
| 50777984 by DaveF | 1 | 2017-08-03 11:40:01 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, I see that on way 34060947 (public footpath) you have set access=no. Did you intend this to say that the footpath is closed? If so, you need to remove foot=yes, which overrides access=no, and preferably add a note to say why it is closed and for how long. If not, please remove access=no as ... |
| 50746415 by hudster | 1 | 2017-08-02 11:59:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi on way 249832140, you seem to have tagged the access in a rather unusual way, setting access=bus, access_1=taxi , and access_2=cycle, with motor_vehicle=yes. If you intended to say that this is open to bus, taxi, cycles (and pedestrians), but not other traffic, you need to remove all three access... |
| 50619030 by Neil Bauers | 1 | 2017-07-29 11:30:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Neil, Village Hall Parking and Village Hall Access do not sound like proper names to me, more like descriptions. I suggest removing the names and adding an area of parking to show where the parking takes place.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-30 21:24:57 UTC | Neil Bauers | I have done as you suggested. Thanks for the hint. | |
| 50598533 by arthursan | 1 | 2017-07-27 16:02:02 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, newly created footways 510547164, 510545824, 510545789 and 510544174 all have access=no and foot=yes. Whilst this combination is not invalid, it does lead to confusion. As the access=no is overridden by foot=yes for pedestrians, and no other transport method is by default allowed for a footway, ... |
| 50571525 by All Good Things | 1 | 2017-07-27 15:48:41 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, "Network Rail Access Track" on way 510311871 sounds more like a description than a name. Can you please review and remove the name tag if this is not the actual name of the track?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-28 23:28:23 UTC | All Good Things | Your quite right, I've removed the name | |
| 50599014 by Gabriel Reynolds | 1 | 2017-07-27 15:45:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, I believe there are no restrictions on cyclists and pedestrians using this bus lane, so motor_vehicle=no rather than access=no was the correct tagging. Can you please review and revert if you agree?Thanks,Mike |
| 50454133 by krd_mapper | 1 | 2017-07-24 16:04:08 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on new way 509205424, you have specified foot=public. This is not a valid value. Did you intend foot=designated or foot=yes?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-26 19:55:11 UTC | krd_mapper | Hi Mike. I think 509205424 was created when I split an existing way. It appears that the ways along this cycle-way were created about 10 years ago and they all seem to have the same tag foot=public. Was this a valid value at the time of capture? Cheers...Kev | |
| 3 | 2017-07-27 06:18:30 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Kev, I've only been a mapper for about 5 years, so am not sure about whether it used to be a valid value.Regards,Mike | |
| 4 | 2017-07-27 06:28:00 UTC | krd_mapper | I'll look at other similar ways in the area and make the corrections along this route.Cheers...Kev | |
| 50532815 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-07-24 20:29:10 UTC | paulbiv | The wiki has access=no as a valid tag. Removing access=no needs survey evidence that access is permitted (It's BAe land). |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 21:21:48 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the other two tags removed were invalid and are the reason I edited the way. The existing foot=yes tag already says that pedestrian access is allowed. As a footway does not allow any other access by default, the access=no is not changing the access for any other transport mode, and is overridden... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-24 21:28:03 UTC | paulbiv | I'll take a look next time I'm over that way. Edge of defence related land could easily have a footpath inside the fence, and users could easily tag that as foot=yes without realising that implies public access. | |
| 4 | 2017-07-24 21:31:03 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Excellent, we'll know for certain then. Thanks. | |
| 50510653 by nickjohnston | 1 | 2017-07-24 15:59:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI I see you have added access=private to way 442664037, but this also has foot=yes and as it is a footway, the access tag is overridden by the foot tag for pedestrians and hence has no effect other than to cause confusion. If you intended all access to be private, please remove the foot=yes tag or ... |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 18:23:05 UTC | nickjohnston | Hi. The finer points of this type of tagging are still not that clear to me so thanks for your explanation. The path in question is private property belonging to Gloucestershire-Warwickshire Railway, so I've removed foot=yes. | |
| 50464904 by kevjs1982 | 1 | 2017-07-24 15:54:07 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have added access=no to ways 16533193 and 16533219. These are footways and have foot=permissive on them, so access=no has no effect other than to cause confusion as to what was intended. If you intended there to be no pedestrian access, please remove foot=permissive, otherwise, please ... |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 16:13:42 UTC | SomeoneElse | @Mike For info see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50175156 and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Broadmarsh_Re-development - it's very much a work in progress at the moment. | |
| 44492399 by user_5121 | 1 | 2017-07-19 13:43:17 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset, ways 84367714 and 84367782 have had their pedestrian access removed. However, they appear to have regional walking route Lea Valley Walk running along them. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-19 16:53:24 UTC | user_5121 | I'm sorry about breaking the relation for the route, I hadn't noticed that.What I did notice when I walked here was that the public footpath does not go across that bridge as I had drawn it originally. Instead the public footpath runs along the new way 460344329 that I created (the signpost on ... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-20 16:16:49 UTC | Mike Baggaley | H, thanks for the info. I have moved the Lea Valley Walk to go along the public footpath.Cheers,Mike | |
| 50409811 by Buschebabau | 1 | 2017-07-20 12:47:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see that on way 177305478 (steps up to lighthouse) you have added access=designated. This is not a valid value for access - did you intend foot=designated (i.e. a public footpath)? I also note that the adjoining paths have motor_vehicle=designated (not added by you) which seems an unlikely val... |
| 2 | 2017-07-20 15:57:35 UTC | Buschebabau | Hi Mike,I have now changed motor_vehicle=designated to motor_vehicle=no and removed access=designated, because i don't know whether the steps up to the lighthouse are accessible to the public. Thanks for informing me!Buschebabau | |
| 50383045 by Neil Bauers | 1 | 2017-07-20 12:40:45 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see that on way 88266262 (track), you have changed foot from designated to no. However, the way has designation=public_footpath. Can you please either remove designation (if the way is not a public footpath) or revert foot to designated (it is is a public footpath).Thanks,Mike |
| 38194942 by RichBoyce | 1 | 2017-07-19 13:17:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I know it is some time ago, when you added bicycle access to way 32455409, but are pedestrians also allowed on it (it is unusual for access to be granted to cycles but not pedestrians)?Can you review?Thanks,Mike |
| 50269033 by abc26324 | 1 | 2017-07-17 15:14:03 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Please note the The Ridgeway is the name of the long distance route, and individual paths segments should not have this name.Regards,Mike |
| 48559724 by Owain Griff | 1 | 2017-07-16 09:57:20 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have named way 487976636 as Private Right of Way - this does not look like a name to me. It can't be both private and a right of way anyway, as far as I know. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 21:14:20 UTC | Owain Griff | Thanks Mike, you are of course correct. It is a public right of way. Silly mistake. I will change and review if if I have made similar mistakes elsewhere. Thanks for feedback. | |
| 47013747 by Glucosamine | 1 | 2017-07-16 07:50:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 481595220 you have set foot=definitive and horse=definitive. These are not standard values - did you intend designated rather than definitive (i.e. is this a public bridleway)?Cheers,Mike |
| 50212838 by abc26324 | 1 | 2017-07-13 16:57:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, to add vehicular seasonal access, you need to use a combination of motor_vehicle=yes/no and motor_vehicle:conditional=yes/no @ (condition) - you can find details at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hoursCheers,... |
| 50204049 by DaveF | 1 | 2017-07-13 16:47:47 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Dave, on way 56463013, you have added foot=yes to a way that has access=private and highway=footway. This can lead to confusion over whether access for walking is intended to be private or public. As this is appears to be a path to a school and terminates in a gate, it might be best to remove acc... |
| 2 | 2017-07-13 21:11:02 UTC | DaveF | Agreed - Done. | |
| 50102946 by robw | 1 | 2017-07-13 15:49:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is way 505783393 actually named (Old) Clay Lane, or is this descriptive? If the latter, then please use either name=Clay Lane if it is still called that, or old_name=Clay Lane if it is no longer the name.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-13 16:34:10 UTC | robw | Source docs at http://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/content.asp?id=28112&nav=838&parent_directory_id=646 are unclear. Will removed the (Old) for now and add a note. | |
| 50232258 by Steve Mapping | 1 | 2017-07-13 11:49:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi please note that paths should not be named with the name of a route such as Cotswold Way - this is the name of a route, rather than the name of the individual paths making up the route. There is already a relation for the Cotswold Way route and this has many paths as members. Walking, cycling rou... |
| 49995393 by Martin Wynne | 1 | 2017-07-04 13:40:48 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on ways 504628768 and 504628767 which are tagged as highway=footway (i.e. only pedestrian access is expected to be allowed), you have included access=private and foot=yes giving rise to confusion as to whether you meant the foot access to be private or allowed. It should not be necessary to set ... |
| 2 | 2017-07-04 14:24:36 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi Mike,Thanks for your message. This is Forestry Commision land, which means that under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 it is "Access Land" with the right to roam on foot anywhere except within 20 metres of a dwelling (unless on a public right of way). The distinction betwe... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-04 14:55:34 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Martin, I wasn't questioning whether bikes have access, I was asking about the foot access because the combination of access=private and foot=yes on a footway gives rise to confusion as to whether the foot access is allowed or private (because although the foot tag overrides the access one, not a... | |
| 4 | 2017-07-04 15:24:59 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi Mike,You have rather lost me. The land is private, owned by the Forestry Commission. There is no public right of way on these footpaths. There are on Access Land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. That means the landowner can under certain circumstances temporarily close the ar... | |
| 5 | 2017-07-04 15:48:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Sorry to have confused you. I'm not planning to walk them (at least at present) - I build my own Garmin GB map from OSM data, and my build process flagged up a warning on these ways about conflicting access tags. If you put access=private on a footway, that means the path cannot be used by the gener... | |
| 6 | 2017-07-04 16:36:33 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi Mike,In the iD editor, when you set some things, other things change automatically. I don't recall setting access=private or highway=footway. I selected "Foot Path" from the menu, and set foot=yes (the need to do that for a foot path is not clear to me).Whatever, it is not showing a... | |
| 7 | 2017-07-04 16:49:07 UTC | Martin Wynne | p.s. Mike,According to the Wiki, yes="The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way."These paths are not public rights of way. The public have a right of access to the land they cross, subject to certain conditions. But the actual route or exi... | |
| 50010699 by RichardBeilby | 1 | 2017-07-04 13:27:58 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Richard, the change to King Street has resulted in pedestrian access being disallowed. I assume this should not be the case. I suggest removing the access=no value.Regards,Mike |
| 49782617 by confusedbuffalo | 1 | 2017-07-02 14:57:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this change to Leazes Bowl appears to have replaced the roundabout we can see on the aerial imagery view with a new junction. The tag junction=roundabout is still in existence on some of the ways, but it no longer looks like a roundabout. Should these tags be removed?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-02 15:38:50 UTC | confusedbuffalo | I was unsure whether to leave them or not. The sign for the junction as you go west on the A690 towards it still shows it as a roundabout (it seems to be the same sign that was there before the junction update), and it does behave somewhat like a roundabout with traffic lights | |
| 3 | 2017-07-02 22:58:28 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Thanks, I have had a look at the plans, and I it looks like it is still a roundabout, however, I have removed the roundabout tag from the western second loop so that there is now just a single loop tagged as a roundabout, and rounded the corners slightly. | |
| 49732347 by zorque | 1 | 2017-07-02 16:45:31 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 502498679 which has highway=footway, you have set access=private and foot=designated. This combination causes confusion, as the only access on a footway by default is foot, making it unclear whether foot traffic is intended to be private or not. If the footway can be used by private indiv... |
| 2 | 2017-07-02 22:21:13 UTC | zorque | Hi, the tagging is actually carried forward from the footway at the western end which I extended. From the top of my head I can't remember any restrictions. It looked more like a usual public footpath. No vehicle traffic possible anyways,Marc | |
| 3 | 2017-07-02 22:28:27 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Thanks, I have removed access=private for the length of the path. Further on it is tagged as a track, for which access=private is more likely to be correct, so I have left it in place on that section.Mike | |
| 49835232 by cjkiller | 1 | 2017-07-02 16:50:37 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in way 503361824, you have specified access=no, foot=designated on a way with highway=footway. It is unclear from this whether the way was intended to have pedestrian access or not, as although the foot tag overrides the access tag for pedestrians, many mappers do not realise this and just add ... |
| 49896014 by lakedistrict | 1 | 2017-07-02 16:37:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, you seem to have added access=no to Gooseholme Bridge, with a note that it was closed when surveyed. However, as the way has foot=yes, the access=no has no effect on pedestrians, which is the only form of transport normally enabled for a footway. I suggest removing the foot tag if this bridge is... |
| 2 | 2017-07-04 11:05:34 UTC | lakedistrict | Hi Mike, Thanks for this advice, I've now removed the foot=yes tag since it isn't required on highway=footway and currently the bridge is closed to all. | |
| 49781788 by Platinum | 1 | 2017-07-02 11:57:10 UTC | Mike Baggaley | H Platinum, in this change you seem to have named a number of ways as Thames Path. This name is the name of the route running along the path, not the name of the individual paths, and the Thames Path route is already defined. OpenStreetMap does not display route names, but you can find the Thames Pa... |
| 49697428 by Martin Wynne | 1 | 2017-07-02 11:51:33 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Martin, in this and a preceding change you appear to have set a number of ways with ref A4420. If a road has an A ref, it needs to be set to highway=primary or trunk. Can you please review and update as appropriate?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-02 13:15:19 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi Mike,As I understand it, that applies to 3-figure A roads, not necessarily 4-figure roads?This is a newly constructed road through a new housing development still under construction (on the site of a former sugar factory). I was surprised to see it given an A number - having driven along it I... | |
| 49392264 by peregrination | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:46:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, following this change, way 67384694 has highway=footway, access=private and foot=yes. As the default access for a footway is to only allow pedestrian access, it is unclear whether this combination is intended to mean foot=private or foot=yes. If the former, can you please remove the access tag. ... |
| 2 | 2017-06-21 10:02:51 UTC | peregrination | Thanks Mike, these footways aren't private (I cycled on them 2 weeks ago), I've just removed the private access tags and merged them with the other footways in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49715940You could add access=yes if you wish, not sure if it's needed. | |
| 3 | 2017-06-21 12:56:58 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Thanks. Adding access=yes would actually imply that all other transport modes can also use the path, so not a good idea.Regards,Mike | |
| 49633855 by davidearl | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:18:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you please clarify why the name Haul Road is enclosed in brackets - roads are not normally named like this?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-21 12:35:33 UTC | davidearl | Yes, perhaps not the best idea. I've changed it to "haul road", lower case. It's a temporary road for construction traffic, and this tends to be what it is referred to as, though it isn't an official name. I think it's better to have something here than nothing, which would be the alternat... | |
| 3 | 2017-06-21 12:53:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this is a local name to refer to the road, then I suggest that the best approach would be to put loc_name=Haul Road and leave the name field blank. This clearly identifies it as a local name. Only proper nouns should be used as names, and they use upper case for first letters (in the UK). | |
| 4 | 2017-06-21 13:04:36 UTC | davidearl | Well if it makes you feel better, feel free to change it. Personally I think that's unnecessarily pedantic. In any case, the road will be gone within a year (all being well). | |
| 49388021 by GeoffJones | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:38:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review the change you have made to way 34603346 which appears to be illogical. The change has added access=no to a footpath (the only access allowed on a footpath by default is foot) and changed foot=designated to foot=yes. The way also has designation=public_footpath, so the prev... |
| 49534771 by Harry Wood | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:24:16 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I note that changing to access=no has disallowed pedestrian access, but the Trans Penning Trail appears to run along it. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-27 21:13:39 UTC | Harry Wood | Good point. Well spotted. So I've added foot=yes to those road sections to fix this. The other way to fix would be to weave the relation along the footways which are there in places... but only in places. As usual, representing pedestrian rout-ability is bit tricky. But yes, certainly this relation ... | |
| 3 | 2017-06-29 22:17:20 UTC | SK53 | From memory I think it's relatively easy to roam around Stockport Bus Station. I'm afraid I probably dont have any photos. Perhaps you should visit & then you can try the delights of the Crown just across the Mersey. | |
| 4 | 2017-06-30 08:06:36 UTC | Harry Wood | Yeah I think all of those footpaths should capture that pretty well. Here we're just talking about this section: http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot&route=53.40921%2C-2.16324%3B53.40958%2C-2.16199#map=19/53.40940/-2.16257 Now foot routable. But somebody might improve it by... | |
| 5 | 2017-06-30 09:32:57 UTC | SK53 | There's a very broad sidewalk (probably better represented as a footway under the bridge along side of the road past the chippy (which I see from photos is called Reggie's). There are gents & ladies loos under the flyover . Also there's a ticket/info office somewhere in the same area. Pavements ... | |
| 49567413 by sixfoureight | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:09:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have set the name of way 124123799 to D30919 in this changeset. Did you intend it to be the ref?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-21 13:36:46 UTC | sixfoureight | Thanks,Just fixed thatAlex | |
| 49573328 by Ottermatter | 1 | 2017-06-20 20:26:16 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, is this road really named Gate 1 Access Road, or is this a description (in which case it should not go in the name field)? It seems more likely that the gate should be named Gate 1.Regards,Mike |
| 49504401 by harg | 1 | 2017-06-20 20:07:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have set access=no to way 500207364 due to a temporary closure, but have left bicycle=yes. This would seem to be incorrect as it denies pedestrian access but allows cycling. Can you please review? Is the closure expected to last for an extended period?Cheers,Mike |
| 49351339 by Kangaroony | 1 | 2017-06-09 14:37:44 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please see hte UK tagging guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines - these state that highways should be mapped as follows:A roads with primary status (signed green) highway=trunk or trunk_linkA roads highway=primary or primary_linkB roads highw... |
| 49247510 by saintam1 | 1 | 2017-06-07 13:23:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 22414700, you have added bicycle=mtb. This is not a valid value for bicycle, as it is intended to show the legal status of whether you are allowed to cycle, not what type of bicycle you need. I suggest changing to bicycle=yes and adding mtb:scale= if you want to specify that it is only re... |
| 2 | 2017-06-07 13:38:10 UTC | saintam1 | Hi Mike,The path is not suitable for the unsuspecting commuter, because it has regular deep grooves in it (for rain water channeling I think?), which is why I tagged it that way -- it's not for cycling unless you're into it as a sport.I think I'll just remove the tag. I don't know what the l... | |
| 48773396 by Pawelaa | 1 | 2017-06-07 13:15:00 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is under construction way 494287254 really going to be one way - it appears to have in and out entries to the roundabout?Can you please review and either remove the oneway tag or set it to yes (a value of 1 is discouraged)?Thanks,Mike |
| 49270867 by urViator | 1 | 2017-06-07 12:51:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you have changed way 27028316 (the end of Level Street) from secondary to tertiary, but it has a ref of B4179. Can you please either remove the ref if this part of Level Street is not part of the B4179 or revert the highway to secondary if it is part of the B4179?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-07 16:57:03 UTC | urViator | My oversight! Thanks, Mike. Now corrected. | |
| 49249838 by h3Bky2ff | 1 | 2017-06-07 12:47:14 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in way 43645053 (swing bridge) you have added access=no. This means pedestrians are not allowed, but the way also has bicycle=yes, so the bridge allows bicycles but nothing else. If the bridge allows pedestrians and cycles, then access=no should be removed, this will allow pedestrians (implicitl... |
| 49168224 by ESL1A2011 | 1 | 2017-06-04 22:09:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you've changed the access from private to commercial on this way. However, commercial is not a standard access value. Can you please change it to a valid value as found on page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-06 12:28:21 UTC | ESL1A2011 | Ok, thanks. I've changed it to customers. | |
| 49007712 by Dartymoor | 1 | 2017-06-04 22:01:07 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you take a look at the change you made to way 176868847? This now has name byway, which is unlikely to be the real name (did you intend designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic?) and it also has access=designated which is an invalid value (it is only allowed for other access types).Cheers,... |
| 2 | 2017-06-10 09:13:09 UTC | Dartymoor | Hi Mike,Nice to speak to you. You're correct, it's not the real name of the lane, which AFAIK is unknown. (One could be facetious and claim it, since there is a signpost at the northern end at least which has Byway on it!)My thoughts on this is that it's better to make it clear that this... | |
| 48864442 by kevjs1982 | 1 | 2017-06-04 20:07:35 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 495029191, did you intend oneway=yes or oneway=no (oneway=service is not a standard value)?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-05 15:38:16 UTC | kevjs1982 | Whoops, that was supposed to be oneway=yes. Fixed. | |
| 49008806 by KeepItSimpleJim | 1 | 2017-06-04 19:03:08 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change set you appear to have named several highways as A329 (M). Firstly this looks like a ref, not a name and secondly the highway is set to tertiary. If this really is the A329 (M) I would expect highway to be primary or trunk with motorroad=yes also set.Can you please review your... |
| 49010424 by ClarkstonCorrect | 1 | 2017-06-04 18:17:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this and associated change sets you appear to have replaced the name "\tGlasgow Southern Orbital" (which I don't know whether it is correct) with A726 (which is definitely incorrect, as if is the ref) on a number of ways. Can you please review and correct as necessary?Thanks,M... |
| 49153224 by chessrat | 1 | 2017-06-04 17:59:02 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice way 208485034 and adjoining ways have highway=tertiary and ref=A6055. One of these must be incorrect.Cheers,Mike |
| 49030589 by Sean4ts | 1 | 2017-06-04 17:14:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this is the B3354 (which is what its ref is set to), then it is a secondary road. Can you please correct either the highway type or the ref?Thanks,Mike |
| 49072433 by NorthBeric | 1 | 2017-06-04 17:05:44 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, does way 496679693 created in this change set have two names? If so, can you please put one of them in alt_name. If not, please delete the incorrect name.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-04 17:23:09 UTC | NorthBeric | Not sure how I managed that, that was an accident. Thanks for the spot. Eric | |
| 48456233 by zeusfaber | 1 | 2017-05-12 22:51:58 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, there are a dozen or so ways that you have put foot=dedicated on. This is not a standard value. Did you intend foot=designated? Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-12 23:05:12 UTC | zeusfaber | Mike,Good spot there. I was having a go at using a phone app to edit while still out in the field that day, so was relying on memory for tags I normally get from JOSM's standard menus. Will fix.A. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-12 23:13:47 UTC | zeusfaber | Done now. Thanks for pointing it out. A, | |
| 48525006 by albjorgui | 1 | 2017-05-12 22:33:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/153213843 is tagged with a designation of public_bridleway, but you have added no to foot, bicycle and horse. Is this not a bridleway, or is there some reason for there to be no access to it?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-12 22:44:14 UTC | albjorgui | Hi. Yes I changed it because last weekend i went on a bike ride and tried to use the road to reach the path that in theory connects at the end of the road. However clear signs that it was a private road were found on the gate and along the service road and the owner of the property told me it was pr... | |
| 48455946 by mapguy99 | 1 | 2017-05-12 22:19:30 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, A68 cannot be the name of way 66151603 - it is the ref. Can you please take another look at it and change as appropriate?Thanks,Mike |
| 48487559 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-05-08 07:55:25 UTC | OffTheChart | The roads inside the gates are known by the Gate Numbers, so it wasn't incorrect as it was. If this doesn't render on the map I will revert your changes. Will you ***PLEASE*** consider adding new detail rather than meddling with existing features? |
| 2 | 2017-05-08 09:14:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi if the roads inside are known by the gate numbers then I stand corrected. It would be useful if you added a note to say that this is the case as this is extremely unusual. However, roads should only be named with the name tag if that name is one which would be used outside the local area (i.e. wo... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-08 12:55:54 UTC | OffTheChart | I've put a lot of effort into the Jersey part of OSM, as I live here and actually know the island and its quirks. My aim has been to produce a map that is useful in its standard presentation. It's frustrating that there have been several instances of things changing and affecting this state of affai... | |
| 48306976 by HenryWolny | 1 | 2017-05-07 23:06:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Henry, I notice you have set access=no to this street which precludes pedestrian access. Did you intend motor_vehicle=no, which would allow pedestrians (the way has bicycle=yes)?Regards,Mike |
| 48419701 by ALY2010 | 1 | 2017-05-06 16:16:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. If I can just make a small point, please only add proper nouns into the name field, avoiding values such as Fire Station and Post Office. If you know the full name (e.g. Normacot Road Post Office) then please add it, otherwise just leave the name field blank.Happy m... |
| 48422139 by jamesnash | 1 | 2017-05-06 15:52:36 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi James, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Just a small point, please only set the name of an item to a proper noun that you would expect to find in an index of items. In this case, I would not expect to see "access to retail" in an index of highway names, so I have removed the name from the thre... |
| 48364995 by Tandava | 1 | 2017-05-04 17:21:43 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify what type of public right of way this is, and move its detail from the name to the designation tag e.g. designation=public_footpath (as "public right of way" is not a name)?Thanks,Mike |
| 48364389 by Tandava | 1 | 2017-05-04 17:18:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi for footway 491117955, you have specified access=no, foot=yes. As all access except foot is by default no for a footway, the access=no does nothing other than cause confusion about whether you intended something different. Can you remove access=no, or did you intend something different?Cheers... |
| 48372943 by CitymapperHQ | 1 | 2017-05-04 17:13:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, did you intend this footway to have private access for pedestrians? If so, you either need to remove foot=yes or (preferably) remove access=private and set foot=private. As it stands, the access you have specified says private access for everything except foot, with public access for pedestrians... |
| 47478037 by bttyA | 1 | 2017-04-06 10:06:43 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is foot allowed as well? Perhaps access=no could be removed?Cheers, Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-06 16:53:56 UTC | trigpoint | As it is designated as a public_bridleway foot is very defiintely allowed, as are horses and bikes. The bicycle=yes tag is therefore pointless and adds tag clutter. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-03 10:13:56 UTC | jogger333 | Dear Mike, Looking at the wiki, one should indeed make the usage clear with appropriate access tagging:"Also taginfo shows a significant number of uses of:designation=permissive_footpathdesignation=permissive_bridlewayThese tags should be used in combination with an appropriate highwa... | |
| 4 | 2017-05-03 10:45:54 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jogger333 , No I think the tagging was was incorrect (the original done by Russ McD). The update by bttyA was what brought it to light. The designation=public_bridleway would set the default access of foot, bicycle and horse=yes, however, access=no would override this and set them all to no. This... | |
| 5 | 2017-05-03 11:13:59 UTC | jogger333 | Hey mike, thanks for the explanation! I was looking for a reference of your statement "The designation=public_bridleway would set the default access of foot, bicycle and horse=yes" but I couldn't find it in the wiki, I really would like to implement it correctly in our routing, Can you giv... | |
| 6 | 2017-05-03 19:05:47 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Unfortunately, I can't find a reference any more - the pages on access and UK mapping guidelines appear to have been changed towards the end of last year with the meaning of designated being changed. Bizarrely, the access=designated page now says the value is deprecated without saying what replaces ... | |
| 7 | 2017-05-04 07:42:55 UTC | jogger333 | Oh yes, the information is really vague. This will make it a bit difficult to conclude routing rules from it that are correct worldwide, not only in UK.Let's see if that is possible and if there are any conflicts popping up.Thanks for your summary, this helped me a lot to understand the issue he... | |
| 48326260 by SBaker15 | 1 | 2017-05-03 11:20:27 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in the footpaths here you have specified access=private with foot=yes. This means that all access except foot is private but access to pedestrians is available to the public. You either need just access=private or just foot=private if you want to say that there is no access to the public which i... |
| 2 | 2017-05-03 16:47:21 UTC | SBaker15 | Hi Mike,Thanks - that was indeed what I meant. This should be corrected now and I make sure I do not make the same mistake in the future! | |
| 48345406 by PeterP | 1 | 2017-05-03 11:12:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Peter, can you take a look at relation 7211752 - the values name=C00X and ref="ACW Closure 2017-05 to 2017-11" don't look to be correct. Should C00X be the ref?Cheers,Mike |
| 48337343 by alterain | 1 | 2017-05-02 19:07:04 UTC | trigpoint | Hi, what is your reason and source for this change? Have you been there?The section you have tagged as a bridge is very definitely a causeway, and it is called simply Swarkestone Causeway.I will see what other local mappers view is, but mine is that this should be reverted.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2017-05-03 11:07:01 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I agree, although not local, I have been over it. My understanding is that there are sections that are bridges and sections that are causeway and that it is in total known as Swarkestone Bridge and Swarkstone Causeway - see https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1088337. It certa... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-03 16:47:06 UTC | trigpoint | I received a reply to this as a private message, for changeset discussions it is better to keep these discussion public where they can be seen by all mappers.The whole is known as Swarkestone Bridge by most people, but most don't consider the detail in the way that a mapper does. The actual brid... | |
| 4 | 2017-05-06 14:39:07 UTC | trigpoint | No response so am reverting it based on my local knowledge gathered over many years | |
| 48026769 by Richard Carden | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:33:36 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Richard, welcome to OSM. I notice you have set bicycle=official on way 1688656, and I don't believe that is a valid value. Can you clarify what you meant?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-02 19:51:58 UTC | Richard Carden | It is a signed bicycle route between the canal and NCN56. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-02 20:01:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hmm, I was about to say that it should be bicycle=designated or bicycle=yes then. However, I see that there is in fact a page explaining its use at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial - but official is not mentioned in the main access page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/K... | |
| 48283762 by loveshack | 1 | 2017-05-01 12:29:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi loveshack, can you explain how changing the road name from Ryeworth Road to Ryeworth Road/The Martins fixes the road name? This sounds like two names. Are they both road names? If they are, then one should go in alt_name. Or do the names belong to different parts of the road? Or is The Martins th... |
| 47920537 by Stephen the Geographer | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:18:07 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Stephen, I notice you have specified access=no and foot=yes on a number of footways in the area, giving rise to some confusion. As footways prohibit all other forms of access than foot (unless explicitly added) it is unclear what is meant by combining access=no with foot=yes on a footway.Rega... |
| 2 | 2017-04-30 16:22:04 UTC | Stephen the Geographer | Mike, I haven't contributed much yet to OSM so I'm happy to be corrected. What combination of tags should i use for a footpath?Stephen | |
| 3 | 2017-04-30 16:47:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Stephen, if the general public can use the footpath then you are best leaving access unset and using foot=yes. If is is signed as a public footpath, use foot=designated with designation=public_footpath. If it is signed as permissive, use foot=permissive. If the path can't be used by the public, t... | |
| 47871081 by sobbomapper | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:31:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice you have set way 487434551 with foot=access which isn't a valid combination. Can you take a look at it?Thanks,Mike |
| 48176317 by Riggwelter | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:28:35 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice you have set way 64295546 with access=permissive;private which doesn't seem to make sense. I suggest that if this is a hotel access road, access=customers might be appropriate.Cheers,Mike |
| 48240922 by ecatmur | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:25:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I have changed access=bus to motor_vehicle=no + busy=yes on the bus pull in as access=bus is not a valid combination. Does that meet with your approval?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-30 19:25:35 UTC | ecatmur | Absolutely, thanks for fixing it. Ed | |
| 47999118 by Henry Stevens | 1 | 2017-04-30 11:37:20 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Henry, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I hope you are enjoying mapping. If I could make a small point, please don't make up descriptive names such as Park Path or Park entrance path - if a highway or point of interest doesn't have a proper name, the name field should be left empty.Best wishes,Mik... |
| 48102867 by tms13 | 1 | 2017-04-30 11:33:12 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, following this and associated changes there are a number of ways that now have highway=motorway, but still have ref=A8 (e.g. way 439078382) should these be M8?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-03 20:50:54 UTC | tms13 | I've just reviewed it all, and I only had a couple to fix. I also updated the E16 route relation through this section to use the new motorway. | |
| 47840141 by nbcaldon | 1 | 2017-04-17 16:41:15 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice you have created a new relation for the Nene Way, however, there is an existing Nene Way relation at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/85093 . Can you move the ways you have added to your relation to the existing one and delete the new relation?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 17:36:54 UTC | nbcaldon | That is my plan, but I cannot see a way to do it yet, which is why I added a note to the map asking for help. Once I complete a bit more of the route between the section I have done and the existing section, it will be reasonably easy to change the relations, but until then I am stuck. I am sure th... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-17 17:48:36 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I have moved way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93223642 for you. You should now be able to see the main relation in that area and be able to add it to the other ways.Cheers,Mike | |
| 4 | 2017-04-17 18:18:20 UTC | nbcaldon | I wish I knew how you had done that! It's a good job I made the new relation a 'Hiking Route' and not a 'Foot Route' or I wouldn't know which was which when selecting the relation in ID editor. Thanks, David | |
| 5 | 2017-04-17 19:13:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I don't use ID - couldn't get on with some of its way of working, so have gone back to Potlatch 2. In that, you click the Load Relation button in the Select Relation window, then type the id number of the relation (you do have to know that, but you can find it from waymarkedrtrails.org). If you have... | |
| 6 | 2017-04-17 19:59:41 UTC | nbcaldon | That is so simple. I think it's impossible in ID, and JOSM is just too confusing that I don't know whether it's possible or not. All done now until our next walk. Thanks. David | |
| 7 | 2017-04-17 23:05:00 UTC | GinaroZ | In iD when editing a feature, if you expand "All relations" at the bottom you can click the big plus sign and then select a nearby relation. | |
| 8 | 2017-04-18 05:27:31 UTC | nbcaldon | That would have been OK, but this part of the route is too far from the next part. I don't think ID can handle this. Potlatch2, suggested by Mike Baggaley, is the answer as you can select any relation, not just nearby ones. | |
| 47835897 by Pink Duck | 1 | 2017-04-17 17:01:49 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, looking at Jolly Sailor Yard, motor_vehicle=unsuitable is not one of the standard access values - it might be better to use either no or discouraged, which are standard values, perhaps adding a note to say the road is unsuitable for motors. This will allow routing software to determine whether t... |
| 2 | 2017-04-18 08:09:33 UTC | Pink Duck | The sign says "unsuitable" explicitly. No would imply no access at all. Discouraged is perhaps an acceptable synonym, but again the sign says unsuitable, and the access is, well, unsuitable. So perhaps the 'standard' access values are outdated? | |
| 3 | 2017-04-18 15:06:30 UTC | Pink Duck | For reference, there are 62 uses of "unsuitable" versus 5 for "discouraged" via TagInfo. Also, discouraged is a different meaning to unsuitable. If one owns a particularly slim motor vehicle then the gap could be made comfortably, so the judgement is per case not a general discou... | |
| 47812553 by Neil Romig | 1 | 2017-04-17 16:19:41 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Neil, welcome to OpenStreetMap.Just a small point, we don't add the names of long distance routes to the paths themselves - the route names belong in the route relations. There is already a Templer Way route relation in OSM that you can see at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1837211 . T... |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 21:11:58 UTC | Neil Romig | Thanks for the pointers, I confess to being inexperienced in the ways of OSM and was trying to resolve some local map notes & issues. | |
| 47762476 by Martin Wynne | 1 | 2017-04-15 14:32:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Martin, please do not add names that are descriptive, e.g. Playground - we already know it is a playground from its tag.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-15 14:54:44 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi Mike,But map users don't know it's a Playground unless I give it a name. I know there are some tiny little squiggly icons, but they are too small for someone of my age to see properly or understand what they mean. Also they vanish at some zoom levels. Most things have a name used by local resid... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-15 15:04:03 UTC | Mike Baggaley | You should not add incorrect data just so because something is not visible at a different zoom level. If the icons are too small for you to see, then please set the zoom level on your browser to display larger (I don't mean zoom in on the map). In addition to an icon, playgrounds are clearly display... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-15 15:19:49 UTC | trigpoint | Hi Martin, also remember that OSM is a geographical database. The map you see on the OSM site is just one, of many renders that are available and anyone is free to create their own if what they require something different. | |
| 5 | 2017-04-15 15:26:03 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi Mike,But how do map users know what the colours mean? I clicked on the Map Key and a Playground isn't listed.When I zoom the browser some icons vanish. Also the map gets very fuzzy. I can't seem to attach a screenshot here, so here's a link:http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery/2/2_151117_37000000... | |
| 6 | 2017-04-15 15:29:16 UTC | trigpoint | Icons are displayed at different zoom levels, I cannot tell what zoom level that image was, but the playground icon (in mapnik) displays starting at z17. | |
| 7 | 2017-04-15 15:40:56 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi, I was zooming the browser (Firefox) as suggested by Mike, not zooming levels in OSM. At some browser zoom settings the icons vanish, and reappear at both higher and lower settings (which doesn't make sense to me).cheers,Martin. | |
| 8 | 2017-04-15 15:44:35 UTC | trigpoint | Use the + - zoom buttons, or simply the scroll wheel if you have a mouse.But do remember that OSM is a database and mapping should not be dictated by a single renderer. | |
| 9 | 2017-04-15 16:03:48 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi, Yes that's what I'm doing, using the mouse wheel. I have added a lot more detail to the Cemetery. Cheers, Martin. | |
| 10 | 2017-04-15 17:28:33 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Regarding items and/or icons seeming to vanish at different zoom levels, you may not be aware that each zoom level is generated separately over a period of time, so after you add something, a few hours later you may see it at one zoom level, but it may not have yet made it into the others. I usually... | |
| 47787368 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-04-14 20:34:42 UTC | ACS1986 | Hi Mike,Adding foot=yes would allow pedestrians whilst maintaining the traffic restrictions.Removing the access=no tag to allow pedestrians has the unintended effect of allowing some types of traffic which aren't permitted by the road signs egs. horses and non-motorised vehicles.Regards,Adam |
| 2 | 2017-04-14 23:48:13 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Adam,I must admit I haven't checked to see whether there is a no horses sign, but these are extremely rare in the UK, so I'd be very surprised if there is one there - they are normally only found at tunnels and other places that could be dangerous. Regarding vehicular traffic, I had thought th... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-15 12:27:45 UTC | ACS1986 | Hi,The signs are the blue circular signs meaning a road for buses, cycles and taxis only. Obviously pedestrians are also allowed unless explicitly prohibited.access=no, foot=yes, bus=yes, taxi=yes bicycle=yes seems a more accurate representation of these restrictions than motor_vehicle=no, bus=y... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-15 13:47:39 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, there are several reasons I normally choose setting motor_vehicle=no over access=no and overriding specific types of access. One is that setting access=no generally sets an incorrect value for horses - neither the blue signs nor the no entry signs prohibit horses, but I don't want to explicitly ... | |
| 47725234 by Martin Wynne | 1 | 2017-04-14 13:36:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Martin welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please note that Geopark Way is the name of a long distance route, not the name of individual path segments.OpenStreetMap already has Geopark Way as the name of the route along these paths, so please do not name the paths as well.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-14 14:48:54 UTC | Martin Wynne | Hi Mike,Thanks for the welcome. You have rather lost me about the Geopark Way. How will map users know it is part of the Geopark Way if I don't label it? Should it be labelled "part of Geopark Way"?Also, I see you have removed the name of the Walshes Recreation Ground. Should I add t... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-14 15:01:17 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Martin, I should have explained that the OSM standard view doesn't show long distance paths, but if you go to waymarkedtrails.org it uses the OSM data to show hiking, cycling and other routes. As for names of points of interest, they should only be added if they are proper nouns, rather than desc... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-14 15:29:18 UTC | Martin Wynne | Thanks Mike. I have only recently started on OSM after finding my local area rather lacking in detail. I'm finding the process strangely addictive. :)Martin. | |
| 47686432 by jamiebally | 1 | 2017-04-13 14:40:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jamie, welcome to OpenStreetMap, I hope you are enjoying mapping. I'd just like to mention a small point about mapping - please don't set the name field to anything that is not a proper noun or describes the item. For example, "Dawlish Community College Bus Bay" is a description and sho... |
| 47641615 by John Grubb | 1 | 2017-04-12 10:26:28 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi John, can you please avoid adding names like "Football", "Hockey" etc as these are not proper names. We already know that they are football and hockey pitches from the sport tag. The name tag should be used to add the actual name of the facility, not as a description. If the f... |
| 2 | 2017-04-12 12:00:26 UTC | John Grubb | Yes, I realise that, Mike - however, looking at the rendering on OSM there's nothing to indicate visually the sport; there's just three identically-green rectangles. Of course, there could be a critical tag missing but the tagging seems complete according to wiki.When editing there is a symbol i... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-12 12:13:43 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi John, you are correct that the standard OSM renderer shows them the same, however we should not be adding incorrect data just so that this renderer differentiates between them. Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer . There are lots of other renederers of OSM data,... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-12 13:04:15 UTC | John Grubb | I suspect it is probably a frustration shared by many more than just myself, Mike - that every feature available to be tagged doesn't show on the "home" of OSM (openstreetmap.org), as the primary/premier/whatever perception of the product, as it were. It seems odd that you would include a ... | |
| 47647896 by ALY2010 | 1 | 2017-04-12 10:34:23 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I hope you are enjoying mapping. Hope you don't mind me commenting, but Post Office is the brand of the post office, not its name. If you want to add the name of a post office, please name it as defined by the Post Office, e.g. Nantwich Post Office or Readsedale Avenue ... |
| 2 | 2017-04-12 13:02:43 UTC | ALY2010 | Ok by me | |
| 47531883 by gurglypipe | 1 | 2017-04-10 13:45:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi instead of access=residents, it might be better to map as access=private with note="residents only". This allows routing software to know whether or not it can route there.This would also agree with the access=private tag that is set on the car park.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-10 14:09:28 UTC | gurglypipe | Done. | |
| 47539658 by Weasel-Wiesel | 1 | 2017-04-10 13:36:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change Fountain Court (485346075) has area=permissive, which is not valid. Did you mean area=yes, access=permissive?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-10 18:48:39 UTC | Weasel-Wiesel | Yes, I did. Thanks for pointing that out. Changed to area=yes and access=permissive. | |
| 29094108 by c0d0 | 1 | 2017-04-09 07:36:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, do you know whether this track is now open again? I noticed it because it allows access for bicycles but nothing else, which seems unusual.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-09 19:56:57 UTC | c0d0 | No I do not know the state of this track. I would think the construction project nearby (/way/32634772) is complete now, so the hopefully the track (which may now be an actual road now) should be available to the public. If someone has the opportunity, both features should be surveyed and updated.... | |
| 47165623 by MacLondon | 1 | 2017-04-05 17:09:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are pedestrians actually prohibited from ways openstreetmap.org/way/482764870 and openstreetmap.org/way/482764863 (access=no has been specified)?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-05 18:04:08 UTC | MacLondon | Mike, these ways are marked as bus only and form a bus only 'crossing' to allow buses to do u-turns over to the other side of Archway road - definitely not for use as a pedestrian crossing. Pedestrian access is along openstreetmap.org/way/482765894 and openstreetmap.org/way/482764868 respectively.... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-09 06:41:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | If they are marked as bus only, then the signage does not apply to pedestrians. It is perfectly legal (but may not be advisable) to walk in a bus lane unless there is a specific no pedestrians sign. The prohibited tag (=no) should not be used to tag inadvisable usage. I certainly suggest that way 48... | |
| 47514132 by ianc | 1 | 2017-04-07 13:40:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Olney Footpath 9 is not a suitable name for a path or road. Please use loc_ref or prow_ref for path numbers.Thanks,Mike |
| 47473790 by Robert Whittaker | 1 | 2017-04-06 10:12:13 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Robert, I don't think that Path #1 is correct to use for the name field as this does not seem to be a proper noun. I suggest this should go in either loc_ref (local reference) or prow_ref (if it is a public right of way reference - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref). Can you ple... |
| 2 | 2017-04-06 10:56:21 UTC | Robert Whittaker | The ways in question are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116516240 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/484923139 . One appears to have been created by me, but was only the result of splitting the way to alter the highway=* tag on one part. The name="Path #1" was originally added by map... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-06 12:01:47 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Thanks for the reply. If I'd noticed you'd just split the way I wouldn't have contacted you. Looking at them and a few nearby paths, I think they are just numbers generated by the mapper. There are no indications of any authority for the numbers, so I have moved them to the note field in case they a... | |
| 47255460 by AllCreatureComforts | 1 | 2017-04-05 22:04:36 UTC | Mike Baggaley | H, hope you don't mind me mentioning, but when adding a point of interest, please do not add a name unless it is the actual name of the place. I have removed name=Cafe and name:en=Cafe.Thanks,Mike |
| 47185336 by INeilC | 1 | 2017-04-05 21:36:15 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, home you don't mind me mentioning, but access=designated (as specified on ways 482913717 and 482913719 in this changeset) is an invalid combination of tag and value. You can find more information at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3DdesignatedCheers,Mike |
| 47334378 by jpennycook (temporarily away) | 1 | 2017-04-05 17:21:34 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you take a look at the change you have made to way 244895368 and a few nearby ways? In the latest change foot=yes has been removed. Are pedestrians actually prohibited? I think there is a wide pavement for this segment and unless there is a sign prohibiting pedestrians, I don't think foot ac... |
| 2 | 2017-04-05 17:26:01 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | Hello Mike. I will take a look shortly, and get back to you. Jon | |
| 3 | 2017-04-05 17:28:36 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | I see what you mean about the London Street bus access roads - I will fix it. Thanks for pointing that out. | |
| 4 | 2017-04-05 18:14:02 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | Hello Mike.I've changed access=no to motor_vehicle=no, which seems the easiest thing to do.Thanks again,Jon | |
| 43811825 by blackadder | 1 | 2017-03-14 20:02:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi blackadder, I know it is a little while ago, but your edit of relation 4292131 (Wharton Retail Park) seems to have left it with an incomplete outline. I'm not sure whether the unclosed line is part of the retail park or not. Can you take a look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4292131 ?... |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 22:41:49 UTC | blackadder | Looks like my cleaning up was so clean after all! Thanks for spotting. Will fix when next editing in that area unless you get to it first? | |
| 3 | 2017-03-14 22:42:12 UTC | blackadder | s/was/wasn't | |
| 46467265 by Vertron | 1 | 2017-03-14 09:10:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Hope you don't mind me commenting, but when adding information, please leave the name tag blank if there is no proper name for the facility (or you don't know what it is). I have removed the name tag Bowling Green from this bowling green.Happy mapping,Mike |
| 46606459 by yourealwaysbe | 1 | 2017-03-14 01:28:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, this change seems to have inadvertently removed the highway tag on way 420606034. Can you please check what you intended?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 09:31:16 UTC | yourealwaysbe | Thanks for flagging this. I think my tags could do with tidying.The cycle lanes along the causeway have been removed and replaced with a shared use path along the south side. The way you highlighted connected the on-road lanes to the marked pavement path over the bridge. Iirc there were never an... | |
| 46404783 by michaelinredhill | 1 | 2017-03-14 01:23:45 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the foot value on way 477199214 seems to be incomplete. Can you please review it?Thanks,Mike |
| 46771056 by Pinniped | 1 | 2017-03-14 01:22:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, the combination of access, foot and bicycle tags on way 451774375 don't seem to be logically consistent. Can you please review them? Thanks,Mike |
| 46473607 by dudone | 1 | 2017-03-14 01:17:14 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, hope you don't mind me commenting, but if a track allows access to agricultural and forestry vehicles (e.g. way 477728220), rather than using motor_vehicle=agricultural;forestry, I suggest using motor_vehicle=forestry and agricultural=yes. This avoids putting two values in a tag - multiple value... |
| 2 | 2017-03-15 20:12:49 UTC | dudone | Hi MikeNo problem with the feedback. I'm afraid I don't know how to find the specific way you mention to look at the history. I think this tag must have already been on the way or I must have accidentally copied it from another way as this isn't a tag/style of tagging I would currently intenti... | |
| 46436312 by ChrisHodgesUK | 1 | 2017-03-14 01:05:34 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Chris, I think you need access:conditional=yes@(Mar-Oct) and also access=noThis gives a default of no access to systems that only read the access value. You could swap the details and give the closed months instead of the open months, depending on whether you want it to default to closed or o... |
| 2 | 2017-03-17 16:34:37 UTC | ChrisHodgesUK | Thanks Mike, that's logical -- and thanks for following through on the fix, I haven't checked this account much in the last few days. I wonder if it will propagate to cyclestreets now you've fixed it, as I've been caught out (I've raised it with them as well -- after all, it's odd to have a nationa... | |
| 46738244 by LivingWithDragons | 1 | 2017-03-14 00:53:32 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi dragon tamer, I notice that you have specified access=staff on way 479717932. Whilst this is perfectly legal, it will not be recognised by any system processing the data because it is not a standard value. I suggest it would be better to put access=private (perhaps with staff entrance or similar ... |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 13:37:33 UTC | LivingWithDragons | Hmm, I thought access=* (any value) was generally accepted and used, although you seem to be right that it isn't.There was a sign declaring staff only, so access=private losses some information. Looking at the wiki documentation, I'm stuck for a better option so I'll go with that. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-16 11:21:00 UTC | SK53 | I generally go with access=private for staff entrances, car parks etc. I'm not sure that a specific tag for staff adds very much, but you could always look at subtagging. I doubt if anyone has tagged various lawns in Cambridge with access=master; access=fellow and access=scholar :-) | |
| 46527609 by INeilC | 1 | 2017-03-14 00:46:31 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice that access=designated has been added to this track. This is not a valid combination - please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated for details. I would also normally expect to see designation=public_footpath along with foot=designated.Happy mapping,Mike |
| 46478364 by roburite | 1 | 2017-03-14 00:41:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, access=designated is not a valid combination, but seems to have been added to way 234722913 in this change. Can you please review it? Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated for details.Cheers,Mike |
| 46616517 by RichardB | 1 | 2017-03-13 23:24:44 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this change appears to change part of Old Hall Lane from unclassified to abandoned. I believe the tagging for the abandoned road should be abandoned:highway=unclassified rather than highway=abandoned. I would have just changed it, but noticed that it still has a walking route tagged along it and... |
| 46448064 by mountainmonkey | 1 | 2017-03-13 23:15:00 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think your change adds way 297059390 to the coast path, however, this way is marked as private. Can you please review the access to this way? Please accept my apologies if I have misinterpreted your change.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-03-15 11:45:13 UTC | mountainmonkey | Well spotted, thanks. These roads are open for non motorised users so I have corrected the access tags to reflect this. | |
| 46442901 by JamesKingdom | 1 | 2017-03-13 22:55:08 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi James, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I think you may be having trouble with highway name and ref fields as this change seems to have replaced the names of several roads, with the refs (ways 125936016, 4731859 and 5235810). The name field should hold a name such as "East Avenue" and the ref ... |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 07:55:48 UTC | JamesKingdom | Fixed. | |
| 46465649 by samlarsen1 | 1 | 2017-03-13 22:38:36 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, it seems unlikely to me that the name of a path would be "Meadowbank House Entrance Walkway". This seems more like a description to me. Can you please review it and move it to the description tag if this is not a real name?Thanks,Mike |
| 46568885 by Martin Borsje | 1 | 2017-03-13 22:30:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review your change of\tSouthwood Road, which has a ref of B749, from secondary to tertiary. If it is the B749, it is by definition a secondary road. If it has been declassified please remove the ref, otherwise please restore the highway to secondary.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 06:06:33 UTC | Martin Borsje | Hi MIkeI restored my change, but in my perception Monktonhill Orad is the throughway and deserves a higher class than the in my view residential Southwood Rd.But if the official classification is like that....OKBRMartin | |
| 46694497 by Thomas Jarvis | 1 | 2017-03-13 22:26:40 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi I'm unclear why you have changed the highway type of the B2272 from secondary to primary. It can't be primary and the B2272, so one or other needs to be changed. Can you please review this?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 09:08:48 UTC | Thomas Jarvis | kkReverting back to secondary | |
| 46414872 by Phil_A | 1 | 2017-03-13 22:15:50 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review the change you have made to Waterfront Way (way 4381408), removing motor_vehicle=no and adding access=no. This change implies no pedestrian access and I believe is unlikely to be correct.Thanks,Mike |
| 46721886 by jpennycook (temporarily away) | 1 | 2017-03-13 20:56:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I note that you have removed pedestrian access from the busway in way 156761024 and adjoining ways. Is there an explicit no pedestrians sign, or was the removal unintentional? With the access mapped at present, from Shrewsbury Avenue, pedestrians share the cycle way then have nowhere to go when ... |
| 2 | 2017-03-13 21:02:48 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | Hello Mike. Thanks for the message. I will take a look tomorrow - I thought I had gone back and fixed this since, but I may have only thought about it. Jon | |
| 3 | 2017-03-14 12:54:26 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | Hello MikeClearly I only thought about it, but didn't fix it. Hopefully this is now fixed in changesets #46834542 and | |
| 4 | 2017-03-14 12:54:40 UTC | jpennycook (temporarily away) | #46840173 Jon | |
| 46550758 by nickbits | 1 | 2017-03-13 20:41:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, did you intend to prevent pedestrian access to the bus lane at the end of Rookes Way (way 464808090)? This is the implication of access=no.Regards,Mike |
| 46142452 by MaxL | 1 | 2017-02-24 13:15:39 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you appear to have re-added some names to paths in this edit. Identifiers such as HW44 and HW21 are not names but are references and should not go in the name field. In an earlier edit, I had moved these to the loc_ref field. As they are not national references, they shouldn't go in the ref fiel... |
| 46265021 by Zugführer | 1 | 2017-02-23 18:31:23 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, The name on road "A96 Park and Choose" doesn't look like a real road name. I know you didn't set the name but as you changed the way from construction to highway thought you might have an idea as to whether this should be a description rather than name.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-02-24 12:56:44 UTC | Zugführer | Sorry, I don't know a better name. I only noticed that the construction of this road is finished when I drove to the Airport by bus, the bus stops there. There are a lot of parking places around the road as well, by th way. | |
| 3 | 2017-02-24 13:07:26 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Ok, I will just remove the name then. | |
| 46259304 by Villa79 | 1 | 2017-02-23 18:46:48 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM. Hope you don't mind me commenting, but "Post office" is not the correct name for a post office. Post Office names are generally of the form Place Post Office where Place might be the name of a town, village, road or similar. "Post Office" on its own is better ... |
| 46224899 by TayportMike | 1 | 2017-02-21 15:29:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM. Hope you don't mind me commenting, but access=staff is not a normally used value. I suggest access=private might be better (you could add a note or desciption in to say this is for staff only).Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-02-21 16:51:58 UTC | TayportMike | I welcome constructive criticism/advice; OSM complexity is quite a challenge. I was just trying to avoid anyone trying to use this path/bridge. I will happily re-tag this as private. Thanks for the help. Mike | |
| 46225680 by nickbits | 1 | 2017-02-21 15:22:39 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, hope you don't mind me commenting, but the correct way to tag a bus lane is not access=bus lane - you need to specify which classes of user are allowed to use the highway. For example, motor_vehicle=no and bus=yes would allow foot, bicycle and bus users (and horses). In this case, leave access u... |
| 2 | 2017-03-06 20:34:54 UTC | nickbits | Mike, thanks for that. I did it like that as there was no entry on the view for a bus. Seeing what you have done, know for future reference. Thanks, Nick | |
| 46129567 by stuskin | 1 | 2017-02-17 20:59:51 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is the service road on way 474992615 really named Farm Access? This seems more like a description. Can you please remove it if it is not a real road name.Thanks,Mike |
| 46159991 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-02-17 16:07:18 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | You might not like their name, but Pharmacy is the name of this shop and is proudly displayed above the window (as can be seen in this streetview photo)https://goo.gl/maps/ri11LPEuHyM2Would you like to undo this change? |
| 2 | 2017-02-17 16:27:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I believe the correct name is Living Care Pharmacy - I've set that as the name. You can see details at http://www.livingcarepharmacy.co.uk/find-a-pharmacy/Blossom+Street/regards,Mike | |
| 46071988 by wilpin | 1 | 2017-02-15 12:30:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think you have inadvertently made a mistake with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60964079 . It now has highway="track; footway" and shouldn't have two values. Can you please correct this?Thanks,Mike |
| 46078174 by AntonyW | 1 | 2017-02-15 12:21:32 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Anthony, I notice that the sections of Chapel Lane that have been opened have ref=A556 on them (not added by you). I presume this is incorrect and that the A556 is the road under the new bridge.Cheers,MikeCheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-02-15 12:39:32 UTC | AntonyW | Mike,Yes. I've tidied up the tags.Antony | |
| 45994373 by tinnishill | 1 | 2017-02-13 13:53:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi I notice you have added access=no to this short section of highway. I am unclear what that is intended to achieve, as it has foot=yes;bicycle=yes;horse=yes and motor_vehicle=permissive, which together mean the access=no is overridden for all classes of user. Also, if has been named "Bus Gate... |
| 2 | 2017-02-13 19:54:43 UTC | tinnishill | I am using ID editor which presents me with simple choices. I select "yes" for foot, bike and horse and "permissive" for motor vehicles, which makes All "no". What is actually there on the ground is about 50 meters of bus lane with an electronically operated bollard (no... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-13 20:17:26 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Thanks for the reply. I suggest taking the name off the road and setting loc_name instead. This is used to specify a locally used name. You could also set the barrier node to have bollard=rising, I'm not sure about motor_vehicle=permissive if the lane is intended for busses with transponders, perhap... | |
| 4 | 2017-02-13 21:18:13 UTC | tinnishill | Right, I've given that a go using the Potlach editor. | |
| 45994280 by tinnishill | 1 | 2017-02-13 13:43:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, cycleway 473954452 created as part of this changeset has no pedestrian access, but does allow motor vehicles. Did you intend foot=yes rather than motor_vehicle=yes?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-02-13 19:41:52 UTC | tinnishill | Yep, that was the idea. I'll change it. | |
| 45921455 by Spearmint | 1 | 2017-02-10 14:45:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I wonder whether you could take a look at way 473371348 and nearby highways you have added with names of Bus Lane, Drop Off and numbers 1 to 12. These do not look like real road names, and seem to be descriptive (for the first two). Not sure about the others - are they bus stand numbers or lane ... |
| 2 | 2017-02-13 09:53:15 UTC | Spearmint | Hi,Well after passing through customs recently, I saw it first hand. Roads are marked as such, and I've marked it to match. Much of what I read on OSM is "map what you see", so I did! The subtleties of what you are saying are beyond the level I really want to learn.Bus lane and drop of... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-13 10:58:36 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM.The name field should be used to hold a name that would be recognised in an area bigger than just locally and should not normally be numeric as these are normally held in the ref field (normally for nationally recognised references such as A1).When something is on a sign,... | |
| 4 | 2017-02-13 11:54:48 UTC | Spearmint | I've changed them all to a description only.Made the bus lane bus = yes, motor vehicle=no. Finally the drop of is now destination only - I guess you could drive round it for a laugh, but it's sole purpose is dropping off people | |
| 45621536 by Wasabisaur | 1 | 2017-02-11 09:01:35 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM. Just a small point that I hope you won't mind me pointing out - when adding items, names of them should only be added if they are proper nouns and left blank if the item has no name. Descriptive information should not be put in the name field.Happy mapping,Mike |
| 45590310 by JezzDog101 | 1 | 2017-02-11 08:53:01 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I don't understand way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/469661492 that was added in this change set. Can you take a look at it and check what you intended?Thanks,Mike |
| 45900549 by Local Mapper | 1 | 2017-02-10 14:53:44 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is "Harker Way (Corby Link Road)" the actual road name? It seems more likely it would be "Harker Way" with "Corby Link Road" as an alternative name. If the latter, "Corby Link Road" should go in the alt_name field rather than in brackets after Harker Way.... |
| 45944537 by nigelphillips | 1 | 2017-02-10 14:34:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Nigel, does this bridge have pedestrian and/or motor vehicle access? Currently it has access=no, bicycle=yes but is shown as a secondary road.Cheers,Mike |
| 45959770 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-02-10 00:29:33 UTC | DaveF | HiWhy did you split these into two?Google Streetview: http://tinyurl.com/jao4ab9I hope it's not because of a failing in mkgmap again. |
| 2 | 2017-02-10 09:14:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Dave,You can see why I split them by looking at the OSM rendered map - it only shows one of the facilities. However, the primary reason is that the shop and post office have different details that cannot be represented correctly together. If you look at these details you will see that the new... | |
| 45893257 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-02-07 20:02:08 UTC | GinaroZ | While it's good you've removed the unnecessary name from the school, would it not be better to improve the map by adding the actual name?You could have a look at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/G/ for the name |
| 2 | 2017-02-07 20:29:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, yes you are quite right. I had not seen the list you mention before.However, I am going through a process of removing a few hundred of these throughout the UK (not just schools) and looking every one up would be too time consuming, as I don't necessarily know the postcode areas. Also, the w... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-08 17:40:04 UTC | GinaroZ | Well in this case I googled the village name + primary school and visited the website to confirm the name/location. There's also the website https://schools.mapthe.uk/ (not working at the moment) which uses OS open data to add the polygon and name data.Not sure I'd rely on people noticing there'... | |
| 4 | 2017-02-09 08:26:37 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The error checking website http://keepright.at flags schools with no name as errors, so they should get noticed. Thanks for the info on post offices.Cheers,Mike | |
| 45879987 by Andrew Heaton | 1 | 2017-02-08 22:32:16 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is "Bowring Park entrance" really the name of the road that leads towards Bowring Park car park? It sounds more like a description.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-02-09 09:10:58 UTC | Andrew Heaton | You're correct, my mistake. I've removed the 'name' now. | |
| 24444927 by Ken_traveline | 1 | 2017-02-07 16:13:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Ken, I know it is some time ago since you made this change, but can you recall whether "Hospital Bus Hub" is the actual name of two roads, or is the bus hub something else (e.g. a set of bus stops). It seems an unlikely road name, but I don't want to delete it without some evidence one ... |
| 2 | 2017-02-07 16:24:09 UTC | Ken_traveline | Hi MikeThe bus hub is essentially a mini bus station with buses stopping on Deansleigh Road or in each of the two marked drive through lanes which have shelters alongside. I have no issues with the names being removed to the description field. My main requirement was plotting the lanes and the und... | |
| 45855625 by Stephen Paulger | 1 | 2017-02-07 14:46:50 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI highway=byway is deprecated and should no longer be used - please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbyway and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions . Can you please update with whichever of the alternatives is the correct one?Thanks,Mike |
| 45794312 by frost409 | 1 | 2017-02-07 14:27:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, it seeme unlikely that "Tesco pedestrian access" is the name of a highway, it sounds much more like a description. Highway names should be names you would expect to find in a gazetteer of highway names. If this is not a real name, please delete it.Thanks,Mike |
| 45801496 by Nuggg | 1 | 2017-02-07 14:18:00 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, your change of High Street from a secondary road to a tertiary road has left way 18790688 with a ref of B3355, and a highway of tertiary, which is inconsistent. I suspect that this part of High Street is not part of the B3355. Can you please either delete the ref or return the highway to seconda... |
| 2 | 2017-02-07 17:47:42 UTC | Nuggg | Ah yes, I have removed the tag. | |
| 45633568 by TitoCasq | 1 | 2017-02-01 12:24:20 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you check whether you intended to create a route with just a single way belonging to it at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6926985? It doesn't seem to add anything.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-02-01 21:48:11 UTC | TitoCasq | Hi MikeI don't know what you are talking about. Just correct what you think is wrong.TC | |
| 3 | 2017-02-01 22:29:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Ok, I've deleted the relation.Cheers,Mike | |
| 45635165 by MisterBen | 1 | 2017-02-01 12:32:17 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, I am unclear what the turn restrictions added at Whitton Road Roundabout are intended to achieve. They appear to be prohibiting going in the opposite direction to the traffic flow around the roundabout, but as the roundabout is one way, you can't go that way anyway. Can you please review these r... |
| 45656481 by BluesBrothers | 1 | 2017-02-01 12:20:21 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you have recently changed the access of way 217215389, to be access=no, but it has both a national walking route and a bus route along it. Can you please check what access there should be (e.g. remove access=no; add bus=yes - I'm not sure whether cycles are permitted).Similarly please look a... |
| 45665202 by Dyserth | 1 | 2017-02-01 12:05:38 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you appear to have added the name "Offa's Dyke Path" to a few paths in this changeset. Please note that this is the name of a route, not the name of the individual paths making up the route and these paths are already attached to the Offa's Dyke Path route relation. Please remove the n... |
| 45486706 by SNBS | 1 | 2017-01-30 12:24:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, "Meadows Car Park" is not the name of the roads within the car park. These roads are unlikely to have any names and should not have descriptive or made-up names added. Can you please remove the names from the highways in the car park?Thanks,Mike |
| 45596315 by TitoCasq | 1 | 2017-01-30 12:18:42 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset the names of 27 ways have been set to "Formartine and Buchan Way". This is the name of a route, not a highway and should not be used to name the individual paths. A route with this name already exists and these ways are members of that route. Although the standard OSM... |
| 2 | 2017-02-01 21:55:59 UTC | TitoCasq | Done. | |
| 28477091 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-25 11:00:59 UTC | DaveF | HiIs it construction or meadow? It can't be both. |
| 2 | 2017-01-25 11:06:32 UTC | Mike Baggaley | no idea, all I did is correct a spelling mistake | |
| 3 | 2017-01-25 11:12:51 UTC | DaveF | Apologies. I clicked on the incorrect changeset. | |
| 45217565 by Ernst Schnell | 1 | 2017-01-23 18:02:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Ernst, Is "Cults Primary School Access" really the name of this highway 466398072? This sounds more like a description.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-01-23 19:26:06 UTC | Ernst Schnell | Hi Mike, Yeah, I guess you are right. The highway is a driveway, but I have taken the name out. Just not much of a fan of streets with no names ;-) But that is fixed now.RegardsErnst | |
| 44973485 by BotleyBoy | 1 | 2017-01-23 17:59:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I don't think "access to local nature reserve" is a valid name for highway 464259584. This looks more like a description.Regards,Mike |
| 44961328 by Atlas Taxis | 1 | 2017-01-23 17:56:31 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi is this road really named "School Access Road"? This seems more like a description.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-01-30 16:14:51 UTC | Atlas Taxis | Hi Mike.You are correct It has no real name. I have removed the name.CheersJim | |
| 37712761 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-22 10:18:16 UTC | Richard | Hi Mike,Interested to note your retagging of the D'Arcy Dalton Way with a comment that it's "no longer classified as a long-distance path". It still appears to be signposted round here and the guidebook has just (December) been republished. Can you shed any light?All the bestRich... |
| 2 | 2017-01-22 12:51:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Richard, Unfortunately I can't remember where I got the information from (possibly LDWA), but my update predates the new guidebook by almost a year. I assume that the route has subsequently been updated and reclassified. I have removed the historic prefix.Regards,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-01-22 16:34:18 UTC | Richard | Hi Mike,That's great - thank you. Went for a walk today and it is still (happily) very much in evidence on the ground, albeit a bit muddy!All the bestRichard | |
| 45026476 by robbob700 | 1 | 2017-01-17 16:48:51 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think that the bus only restriction may be just at the end of way 464720540 to prevent through traffic, rather than along the whole of that and adjoining way 302285986. It seems to be a new housing estate, so it seems unlikely that residents would not have access to their own houses. At the ve... |
| 2 | 2017-01-17 22:34:47 UTC | robbob700 | Thanks MikeYes I meant to show this as a shorter length of road. I've now corrected it.Robert | |
| 45164183 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-15 16:23:23 UTC | ndm | Not a description - it is a prominent name in addition to logos/branding. I have added a note that the name needs to be (re)surveyed. Could you please add such notes in the future; unless you've directly surveyed it. |
| 2 | 2017-01-15 23:59:59 UTC | Mike Baggaley | In hindsight, it would have been better if I had moved Post Office to the brand tag instead of just removing it. I will go back and set the brand tag. I believe the correct name should be <something> Post Office, not just Post Office on its ownCheers,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-01-16 00:22:06 UTC | ndm | I was finishing up an edit on this road -- and found a couple of relevant photos. Have updated the name. | |
| 45109495 by andyfrizzle | 1 | 2017-01-14 18:45:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Andy, U10633 does not seem like a valid name for way 107127842. Were you intending it to be the ref?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-01-14 18:47:44 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I also notice ways 138609531, 144783725 and 144783731 have similar errors (U4047 and U3071).Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-01-14 23:31:14 UTC | andyfrizzle | Mike, These are unclassified county roads in Northumberland that I am adding to OSM.The U1063 is the road number as classified by Northumberland County Council. The road numbers can be checked against the Northumberland Adopted Highways Map at http://map.northumberland.gov.uk/adoptedHighways/A... | |
| 4 | 2017-01-14 23:43:10 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Andy, no problem with the numbers, but they need to go in the ref field, not the name field. I think there are 7 instances of your changes putting them in the name field - the 4 previously mentioned plus ways 202029240, 465437434 and 465437953.You can view them at URLs of the form http://www.... | |
| 5 | 2017-01-14 23:58:11 UTC | andyfrizzle | Mike,I will amend the records, but I cannot see where to enter the 'ref=U1063' data when editing the map. Let me know how to do this and I will amend the records.Andy | |
| 6 | 2017-01-15 00:23:59 UTC | andyfrizzle | Mike,I now understand how to input the ref field.I will amend the other records.Thanks for the input and assistance.Andy. | |
| 45071423 by Mappernerd | 1 | 2017-01-14 18:56:05 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is there some reason why you have removed junction=roundabout from way 369298681 or was this a mistake? There is now an incomplete roundabout at this point. Can you either reinstate this tag or if this is not a real roundabout, remove junction=roundabout from the rest of the ways?Thanks,Mi... |
| 44340326 by mossman | 1 | 2017-01-13 16:29:56 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, have you inadvertently merged two ways into way 228274269? Your recent change has set designation=public_bridleway; public_footpath, foot=designated; yes and access=designated. None of the above are valid values. Can you take a look at what you intended?Cheers,Mike |
| 38295832 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2017-01-11 13:15:47 UTC | Derby45 | Hi Mike, this is only an advised route from Cycle Derby. It's not a signed route or part of any network.03 is the number of the leaflet printed locally.This shows on the cycle map as 03. |
| 2 | 2017-01-11 13:26:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | OK, probably would be better as loc_ref=3. I'll change it to that. Cheers,Mike | |
| 44881022 by Gyrwa | 1 | 2017-01-10 17:32:39 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you have recently set way 144233963 and adjoining way to be access=no, bus=yes. This combination means pedestrians have no access. Is that what you intended, or would you be better using motor_vehicle=no and bicycle=no instead of access=no?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-01-10 19:10:37 UTC | Gyrwa | It was intended, I mapped the parallel footway/cycleway as seperate ways. I will look into the consensus on this to see if the ways around the station need redoing. | |
| 3 | 2017-01-10 19:41:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I think that unless there is a sign saying no pedestrians, the way should allow pedestrian access. It is normally perfectly legal (though possibly inadvisable) to walk along the road, even if there is an adjacent pavement. If road only data is being extracted from the OSM database, this will prohibi... | |
| 31773456 by wilbysuffolk | 1 | 2017-01-05 16:54:32 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the change is some time ago (last year), but you appear to have changed way 105885027 to be a footway with no foot access. Can you remember whether that is what you intended?Cheers,Mike |
| 44635117 by Cptliam010 | 1 | 2016-12-27 00:01:23 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi,the recent change to way 125240282 doesn't seem to be correct as it appears to have inadvertently merged two different highways at a random point, taking the merged highway through the middle of buildings. Can you check what you intended?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-12-28 22:39:53 UTC | Cptliam010 | I don't see a problem I have just added in a few pathements | |
| 3 | 2016-12-29 00:26:40 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I can only assume you have replied without actually looking at way 125240282, which you can view at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125240282 . It has a point in the middle which runs completely back on itself to what appears to be a random point, taking the path through the middle of a line of hou... | |
| 4 | 2016-12-29 00:32:45 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hello,The path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/461457844 doesn't seem to match anything on the imagery. I'm guessing that you're perhaps making stuff up for Pokemon Go? If so, please don't do that - it'll just get deleted.OpenStreetMap is a map of the world as it exists, not as we'd like it ... | |
| 5 | 2016-12-31 22:02:50 UTC | Cptliam010 | i lloked and i see the problem i dont play pokemon go and i was adding this as a school project | |
| 6 | 2017-01-02 00:22:05 UTC | SomeoneElse | @Cptliam010 Thanks. Does http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/463015775 really exist as it is currently drawn? It seems unlikely... | |
| 7 | 2017-01-02 00:49:48 UTC | Cptliam010 | In fact it does it is a rough sketch of the paths the kids can run along and play about on | |
| 41859939 by eastender | 1 | 2016-12-27 00:32:07 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi way 4487075 appears to have an A road ref, be part of a roundabout, and be a service road with private access. This would appear to be somewhat unusual. Is the junction really a roundabout, and should the A road ref be removed from it?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-12-27 01:27:41 UTC | eastender | Originally way 4487075 formed part of a roundabout. The local authority refers to it as a longabout, which reflects the shape of the junction. Traffic could circulate in a clockwise direction, although the junction where the way meets the east side of the roundabout was traffic light controlled. Whe... | |
| 44242482 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-12-07 20:56:06 UTC | ndm | Not sure what "foot access" has to do with this change. It just seems to lose information about switching lanes. Bing imagery is out of date -- and I thought it was mapped fairly well. Did you survey this? |
| 2 | 2016-12-07 23:08:37 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Apologies if I have misinterpreted this junction. I was adding sidewalk=none to clarify why the road had no foot access. In looking at the junction, I did not think there was any kerb between the two directions of traffic, so considered that the correct mapping was to only have a single highway show... | |
| 44073504 by Pete Owens | 1 | 2016-12-02 14:59:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi way 23563067 several adjoining roads appear to have a ref of A574 but have been changed to secondary. If the roads have been downgraded, please remove the A road ref. If not, please set the highway back to primary.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-12-02 16:45:39 UTC | Pete Owens | Changed back - but the designation is historic. These roads do not form part of Warrington's primary network anymore and are not signed on the ground. | |
| 3 | 2016-12-02 16:57:38 UTC | Mike Baggaley | If the reference no longer applies, it might be better to put the reference in the old_ref tag and put highway as tertiary (if secondary it ought to have a B ref).Cheers,Mike | |
| 44060982 by SiHollett | 1 | 2016-11-30 18:50:27 UTC | trigpoint | Hi, what is the source of these reference numbers, and do you have permisson to use them?Also I assume they are not verifiable on the ground so should be in admin_ref rather than ref. A satnav telling a driver to turn left into UX2 will be both confusing and annoying.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2016-11-30 19:36:49 UTC | SiHollett | 1) source - https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/28177/List-of-classified-roads/pdf/JW-LIST_OF_CLASSIFIED_ROADS.pdf2) there's zero copyright on the document (and it's illegal for it's data to not be accessible to the public), though I should have sourced it3) there's masses of unsigned roads ... | |
| 3 | 2016-11-30 19:49:44 UTC | SomeoneElse | Ahem. I'd suggest that your paragraph (2) could probably benefit from a bit of wider discussion - I'd suggest that talk-gb list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb for that - it's where youll probably find the widest audience of GB mappers.Re (3) it's definitely worth following custo... | |
| 4 | 2016-12-01 07:39:20 UTC | Richard | Just because a document doesn't have a copyright notice on it doesn't mean it's uncopyrighted, I'm afraid. Quite the opposite- copyright subsists unless expressly disclaimed. Second, a document being "accessible" has no bearing on its copyright status. Third, as SomeoneElse explain... | |
| 5 | 2016-12-01 09:03:35 UTC | SiHollett | "ref= means the same thing the world over: let's not add a needless exception for one country."Which is to include references that aren't signed with ref= tags. Unless Hungary, Estonia, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Albania and all the other countries that include every road nu... | |
| 6 | 2016-12-01 09:55:23 UTC | SomeoneElse | @SiHollett Your comments above seem to suggest that you believe that you and you alone have the correct answer - everyone else who disagrees with you must be wrong or somehow unenlightened. If only life was so simple - n the real world there are different views that need to be taken on board and di... | |
| 7 | 2016-12-01 13:12:11 UTC | SiHollett | "Your comments above seem to suggest that you believe that you and you alone have the correct answer"Not at all - that's you guys demanding that only you have the right version of true and that I conform to it. If you actually held to the idea that there's different versions of "tru... | |
| 8 | 2016-12-01 13:19:54 UTC | SomeoneElse | > you refuse to handle it personally,No - go back and read it again. | |
| 9 | 2016-12-01 13:53:30 UTC | SiHollett | "Finally, speaking as someone who creates maps for my own satnav based on OSM data, how am I supposed to make it know which refs are signed and which not?"This reads like 'I, personally, don't deal with it as I'm clueless and must get other people to do that for me, relying on them to ... | |
| 10 | 2016-12-01 14:24:53 UTC | SomeoneElse | Seriously - when you've got three people suggesting that you might want to reconsider what you're doing, just how unable-to-consider-alternate-points-of-view do you have to be to think "I'm right; evereyone else is wrong".If you'd actually read the links I provided above you'd understand... | |
| 11 | 2016-12-01 14:58:29 UTC | SiHollett | "Seriously - when you've got three people suggesting that you might want to reconsider what you're doing, just how unable-to-consider-alternate-points-of-view do you have to be to think "I'm right; evereyone else is wrong"."So, hang on, so beyond having not one, not two, but ... | |
| 12 | 2016-12-02 14:54:33 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Looking at Lees Road (way 23111785 and adjoining), the U prefix reference suggests this is a tertiary road, but the highway tag has secondary in it, so either the ref tag or the highway tag is incorrect. Can you please either put a B road ref or change highway to tertiary?Thanks,Mike | |
| 13 | 2016-12-02 15:20:50 UTC | SomeoneElse | @Mike Baggaley - I think you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4275498 (I keep doing that too!) | |
| 14 | 2016-12-02 15:59:16 UTC | SiHollett | Mike, any reason why you couldn't do it? surely it would have taken less time for you to do it than to ask me to?also, why am I responsible, when someone else erroneously made it secondary, rather than tertiary?Anyway, I've changed it, though I have no idea why I'm being so nice. I even chan... | |
| 15 | 2016-12-02 16:32:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Thanks for that, Si. I am not local to the area so don't know anything about the road, other than that it failed my check of secondary roads with a ref beginning with something other than a B, so I had no way of knowing which tag was incorrect. As the last change to the road was to set its ref, it s... | |
| 16 | 2016-12-02 16:37:59 UTC | SiHollett | OK, thanks Mike, that makes sense | |
| 17 | 2017-05-11 13:30:25 UTC | EdLoach | I just stumbled across UX6 and wondered why ref has been used in place of official_ref - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:official_ref but see there has been discussion already. It looks like we're being left to correct them as we find them? | |
| 43385866 by grahamfletcher | 1 | 2016-11-05 13:09:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Graham, long distance path names belong on the route relations, not the paths that make up the route. This highway is already a member of the Offa's Dyke Path relation.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-11-05 14:12:00 UTC | SomeoneElse | For info, here's a public example that shows it: http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!51.8143!-2.7444 | |
| 43279996 by Rossendale Gary | 1 | 2016-11-05 12:42:03 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Gary, you have recently changed the highway from secondary to tertiary for Royle Road and Princess Way (ways 23360381 and adjoining). However, these are tagged B634 - I do not know whether this ref is correct. Can you please either delete the ref if it is not correct, or return the roads to secon... |
| 28688591 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-11-05 00:28:05 UTC | trigpoint | Hi, I pass https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326960247 every day and cannot recall any signs legally prohibiting HGVs. What is the source of this, remember access tags are meant to indicate the legallity, if you wish to tag suitability then lanes=1 or width = 2m are the way to go. |
| 2 | 2016-11-05 08:38:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I split this way from way 39207901 and did not define any of the tags whilst adding the Shropshire Way relation to parts of it. You may wish to look at the adjoining parts of Isombridge Lane and remove the hgv tag from those as well. I am not local so don't know the restrictions on it.Cheers... | |
| 3 | 2016-11-05 09:38:30 UTC | trigpoint | Sorry, should have dug a bit deeper. I can see the tag has been on the original way since forever. I will investigate.Cheers Phil | |
| 43159792 by albjorgui | 1 | 2016-10-26 11:42:10 UTC | Mike Baggaley | *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit osm.org |
| 42456236 by tms13 | 1 | 2016-10-24 10:21:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you check the change you made on way 93670400 from oneway=no to oneway=no;yes which is not valid. Did you intend this to be oneway=yes? There also appears to be an adjoining way to the west that is one way, but I suspect it should be two way.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-10-24 12:47:14 UTC | tms13 | Fixed (both - I saw no evidence of one-way working) | |
| 42930401 by IttzMatty | 1 | 2016-10-20 11:09:17 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you please take a look at the changes you have made to highways you have named Melton Road B666. Certainly the name should be Melton Road, rather than Melton Road B666. Are you sure the B666 still exists? If so, please put B666 in the ref field and also update the bridges and links to rounda... |
| 2 | 2016-10-22 10:32:54 UTC | trigpoint | I also don't believe that this is secondary road, you have changed it from a tertiary. It would be unlikely that a B road alternative to a bypass would be provided, it just isn't the way LCC do things.Have you any evidence that this is not a tertiary road?I also have serious doubts about the B... | |
| 3 | 2016-12-21 00:08:36 UTC | trigpoint | Fixed in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44553986 | |
| 42798816 by FollowMeChaps | 1 | 2016-10-20 10:39:39 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note Wye Valley Walk should be the name of the route, not the name of the the individual path segments making up the walk. These paths are already part of the Wye Valley Walk route relation.Regards,Miike |
| 41941714 by tms13 | 1 | 2016-09-15 13:11:39 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice that way 440858988 has been changed to abandoned, I assume due to recent road changes in the area. However, cycle route 71 appears to run along it. Can you confirm whether route 71 needs to be re-routed or whether the old road is still in use as a cycleway?Cheers,Mike B. |
| 2 | 2016-09-15 18:43:28 UTC | tms13 | Thanks for spotting this. I think that the cycleway is routed over the new track to Low Street - I've made a best-guess edit in changeset 42182872; it could do with an on-the-ground check to be completely sure. None of my photos have any NCN signage in them at all. | |
| 41327847 by Kangaroony | 1 | 2016-09-05 09:37:57 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change, a number of ways have been downgraded from secondary to tertiary. However, they have ref set to B3205. Have these sections of road been declassified? If so, please also remove the ref. If not, I would be grateful if you could revert the roads to secondary, as that is the correct ... |
| 41082002 by Rob Lane | 1 | 2016-09-04 16:17:23 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, looks like way 120290121 has been merged from ways with conflicting tags as it has foot=yes;permissive and highway=footway;track. Can you check what it should be?Cheers,Mike |
| 41836126 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-31 22:22:34 UTC | GinaroZ | Hi, noticed you removed the ref=A199 from the roundabout - what's the reason for doing that? And are you planning on doing it for all the other roundabouts as well? |
| 2 | 2016-08-31 23:20:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the main change was to separate roads so that each road joins at a separate node, which I am aiming to do on a lot of roundabouts. Roundabouts are junctions between different roads and are not strictly part of any of the adjoining roads, and hence shouldn't have the ref of an adjoining road (the... | |
| 41717216 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-26 21:35:41 UTC | ndm | Are you sure this is correct? I thought that the whole point was that cyclists don't need to enter the roundabout -- check it out on Bing. A "Fixing roundabouts" changeset comment would've been really useful too. Cheers. |
| 2 | 2016-08-26 23:27:58 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I did use Bing to fix the roundabout, to separate the cycleway and road points where they meet the roundabout. The previous entry already touched the roundabout at the same point as the road. From Bing I would say you could draw that part of the roundabout several ways. The original violates the jun... | |
| 3 | 2016-08-27 10:24:52 UTC | ndm | Well, it's being redeveloped so will need resurveying soon. P.S. I use JOSM, so it remembers a last set of changeset comments -- but a simple text file and copy/paste would do the same for other editors -- a pain the first time, but not for subsequent edits. | |
| 41717138 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-26 21:38:54 UTC | ndm | Are you sure this is correct? Buses on separated bus lane can no longer enter the roundabout. A changeset comment would be good too. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2016-08-26 23:12:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hopefully now improved - I was confused as the bus routes were showing as down the right hand lane, not the left. I have also moved them to the left lane. Regards,Mike | |
| 41029503 by Troon | 1 | 2016-08-25 10:34:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the roundabout at way 4533238 does not seem to be complete. Can you confirm whether this is what is on the ground or whether a segment has been missed out? Bing shows a complete roundabout.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-08-25 11:10:10 UTC | Troon | It's correct — lots of road alterations going on | |
| 41338776 by Kangaroony | 1 | 2016-08-22 23:38:13 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice you have changed the highway value of way 23219793 and adjoining ways from secondary to tertiary. Is this road no longer the B3205? If so, can you please remove the ref. If not, secondary is the correct highway type.Regards,Mike |
| 41580325 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-22 18:03:14 UTC | chillly | If the footway (or track or whatever) is a public right of way I suggest you add designation=public_footpath or designation=public_bridleway. It allows you to split the legal designation from the physical highway, for example a track (highway=track) could be a public footpath or a bridleway |
| 2 | 2016-08-22 18:47:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Not sure I understand why you have made this comment on my change - I am fully aware of the use of designation, but my change was just removing an incorrect name from the path (it had the name of a route in it). I have no idea of the legal or physical details of the path as I am not local to it. | |
| 3 | 2016-08-22 18:50:59 UTC | chillly | A changeset comment would have helped others understand what your change is about. | |
| 41531946 by Hbunnet | 1 | 2016-08-21 09:11:10 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is 105 really the name of the peak at node 4355538354, or did you intend this to be an elevation?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-08-21 09:45:31 UTC | Hbunnet | Thanks, corrected now. | |
| 41350633 by Fluclo | 1 | 2016-08-17 10:35:32 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is way 334783369 really one-way? If so, oneway=1 is a discouraged value - oneway=yes is the preferred value.Regards,Mike |
| 41176838 by Stan W | 1 | 2016-08-14 16:25:55 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Stan, I do not think Public Footpath (A66) is a valid highway name. A66 sounds more like a reference of some sort. I have moved it to the loc_ref field.Regards,Mike |
| 41300486 by tomca12 | 1 | 2016-08-09 06:58:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, "West Highland Way" is the name of a route, and should not be added as the name of the highways along which the route runs. You will find the route relation already has that name.Happy mapping,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-08-09 08:29:34 UTC | tomca12 | I am sorry, it didn't show in the navigation app OsmAnd so I thought it wasn't there. Or do you think it's not that particular way I have marked? I am a little confused. In the Landranger map it was this particular way and had the name along it and in the terrain I would have found it useful if the ... | |
| 3 | 2016-08-09 09:17:58 UTC | SomeoneElse | @tomca12 Lots of things are in the data that any one individual map can't show. There are web maps that already show this sort of information - see e.g. http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!53.0918!-1.6495 and http://www.thunderforest.com/maps/outdoors/ . If you think that it'd be a useful a... | |
| 4 | 2016-08-09 13:42:38 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, to clarify, if you look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16287 you will see it is a relation for the whole of the West Highland Way. All the highways that form part of the West Highland way are members of that relation which holds the name of the long distance route, along with a few oth... | |
| 5 | 2016-08-13 18:05:34 UTC | tomca12 | OK, so is it corrected now? I will use OsmAnd for a little longer for walking mountains, etc. to see what would actually be useful to have in there from that perspective. :) | |
| 6 | 2016-08-13 18:09:39 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Yes, I have removed the names of routes from the highways. | |
| 41311613 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-08-08 14:01:49 UTC | trigpoint | Hi MikeSomething seems to have gone a bit wrong.here, you seem to have removed the.ways from this through route relation.What.were you trying to achieve or what did you see wrong here? Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2016-08-08 16:57:01 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Phil, my understanding of the through_route relation is that it should have two ways and one common node to indicate the normal way ahead. This relation had more that two ways connected to it and was causing warnings to be generated in a process I use based on the OSM data. I was going to try to ... | |
| 3 | 2016-08-08 20:36:27 UTC | trigpoint | Thank you for your reply Mike.The number of ways had increased, caused by adding speed limits.Had not realised the proposal had been rejected, although it is important and should be revived at some point. I am quite surprised by the lack of understanding in some of the comments, these junctions ... | |
| 41129897 by CraigW | 1 | 2016-07-31 11:18:29 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI Craig, the correct way to add Welsh and English road names is to put the English name in name:en, the Welsh name in name:cy and one of the two names in the name field. The name field should not have more than one name in it.Happy mapping,Mike |
| 40980558 by DanGregory | 1 | 2016-07-28 14:52:26 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dan, you have set way 84801616 to be private, but it has the Wales Coast Path relation along it. Are you sure it is private, or should the coast path be running along the nearby path? |
| 40538588 by blowfishsoup | 1 | 2016-07-21 12:52:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are you sure "Building 1 Approach Road" is really the name of this road. This sounds more like a description, or possibly a local name.Cheers,Mike |
| 39188508 by Johnpoulson | 1 | 2016-05-26 10:08:43 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, John, you appear to have changed the name of this road from Llanfair Road to A483 with the comment "Road name incorrect". I don't know whether Llanfair Road is the correct name, but A483 is definitely wrong for the name. Can you please review? |
| 39188381 by Johnpoulson | 1 | 2016-05-12 08:59:45 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you appear to have changed the name of this road to A483 with a comment that the road name was incorrect. It is now definitely incorrect as A483 is its reference. Can you please check what you intended? I note that there is also an adjoining bridge which also had the same name - does this need a... |
| 2 | 2016-05-12 11:27:43 UTC | SomeoneElse | "A483" already was the "ref" here and I don't remember seeing a name when I last drove along it. If something doesn't have a name (and many roads don't) there's no need to store the ref in the name field as well.Oh - and welcome to OpenStreetMap! | |
| 39156451 by BCNorwich | 1 | 2016-05-09 19:55:34 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, ER6 is not the name of a highway. I have assumed this is the local reference for a footpath, so have moved it to the loc_ref field. |
| 2 | 2016-05-10 05:52:32 UTC | BCNorwich | Hi, my main concern here was that a new highway (that footpath) was placed atop an existing one which was wrongly tagged as highway=service. I corrected this.I do notice that relatively new mapper joejwall has added numerous way names in this manner, also naming paths and tracks as name=Path and... | |
| 38273597 by h2g2bob | 1 | 2016-05-08 22:42:03 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Is Rayleigh Road no longer the A1015? Please either remove ref=A1015 or reinstate highway=primary. Thanks. |
| 2 | 2016-05-10 00:00:23 UTC | h2g2bob | Hi, the A1015 continues down Rayleigh Road here, but this is no longer the main route used by traffic. Out of 15,000 cars going along Rayleigh Road, 13,000 continue along Whitehouse Road (according to https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=17kjyGeMlh5qOb0UD3a2VwaxD173Cjssy61SDQ_Y#map:i... | |
| 3 | 2016-05-10 11:50:37 UTC | trigpoint | Hi h2g2bobI am not sure that google docs is a valid source of information for OSM, especially as the map it contains is from a source that must never ever be used in OSM.In OSM we map what exists and we can survey and verify on the ground, not what we feel makes a more useful map.This change s... | |
| 4 | 2016-05-10 23:44:27 UTC | h2g2bob | Hi,To be clear, the edit to the map is from observing how traffic uses the Rochford Corner junction (I'm local to the area) and observing that almost all the traffic continues to Whitehouse Road and very little continues south.The council have classified these roads poorly compared to their ... | |
| 38852367 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-04-25 21:23:26 UTC | ndm | Not clear how deleting the names from the driveway improves OpenStreetmap -- maybe replacing the & with a ; might have been better. Or adding a note for local mappers.Would be so much easier to tell what the changeset is meant to do if there was a comment. |
| 2 | 2016-04-25 22:35:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Apologies. These names are not the names of highways, they are the names of buildings.hence the deletion from the highway. There are others nearby that I moved the name to addr:housename, but must have omitted this one. | |
| 37885338 by tms13 | 1 | 2016-04-06 16:22:35 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The junction of Clyde Arc and Govan Road now has way 133800148 with oneway=yes;no and running into a one way segment of Govan Road. This doesn't seem quite right.Regards,Mike |
| 38015759 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-03-23 11:32:20 UTC | GinaroZ | Why did you change this from a path to a footway? |
| 2 | 2016-03-23 11:39:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | because it has footway=sidewalk. The help on Tag:footway=sidewalk says, "Use footway=sidewalk along with highway=footway to tag sidewalks". Is there some reason you think it should not be a footpath? | |
| 36038072 by AnkEric | 1 | 2016-03-22 00:02:49 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are you sure these conditional restrictions are correct? It seems unlikely that this area would have restrictions on when pedestrians can access it. There is also a national cycle route apparently running along it. I suspect the conditions should be on motor vehicles.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-03-22 09:22:37 UTC | AnkEric | History {5/12/08}: [access=no] + [bicyle=yes] + [foot=yes] + [hour_on] = 10:00 + [hour_off] = 16:00; Osmose: Tag hour_off, hour_on is deprecated: [Conditional_restrictions] or opening_hours; This Osmose error is chasing me since {9/24/12} ;-) So now I corrected tagging not to use deprecated ta... | |
| 3 | 2016-03-22 11:31:59 UTC | SomeoneElse | @AnkEric If re-survey is not an option, I'd suggest adding an OSM note so that local mappers and visitors can check. Changing something that is detectably wrong to something undetectably wrong makes the quality of OSM data worse, not better. | |
| 4 | 2016-03-22 16:37:55 UTC | AnkEric | http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map is leading in mapping errors detection. An error dating back for 2777 days old is not very 'detectably'. At least local mappers have not been very responsive. Is it 'wrong'? That's the question. It's at least highly unlikely. My change was detected afte... | |
| 37800655 by skgrange | 1 | 2016-03-20 12:18:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, The Ridgeway is the name of a route, and should not be added as the name of a highway (path).Regards,Mike |
| 36928012 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-03-09 21:46:28 UTC | SomeoneElse | Any reason why you've changed the Sabrina Way from route=foot;horse to route=horse?All of the bits that I've mapped it's been perfectly possible to follow on foot! |
| 2 | 2016-03-09 22:23:13 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the Sabrina way is specifically a long distance bridleway developed for the British Horse Society, according to http://www.peakdistrictview.com/ and www.ldwa.org.uk. Whilst I would expect it to be walkable (and mtb cycleable), it is not primarily a walking route, hence my reason for changing it. | |
| 3 | 2016-03-09 22:35:44 UTC | SomeoneElse | It follows bridleways, sure - but the signage is such that you'd never follow it on a horse! In what way did it look like "not a walking route" to you? | |
| 4 | 2016-03-09 22:46:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Did you read my previous note? | |
| 5 | 2016-03-09 22:48:02 UTC | SomeoneElse | Yes - although personally I tend to rely on surveys rather than websites. | |
| 6 | 2016-03-09 23:00:24 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Which is excellent for mapping the actual route. However, no amount of survey will tell you what the route is intended for. | |
| 7 | 2016-03-09 23:24:50 UTC | Mike Baggaley | To compare with cycle routes, pretty much all of which can be walked, we do not put route=foot;cycle, so to me it seems logical to handle this in the same way. | |
| 35731872 by abc26324 | 1 | 2016-02-23 17:28:44 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if the A159 continues further along Ashby Road, as suggested by your recent edit, can you change the highway type to primary or trunk to reflect this?Cheers,Mike |
| 37252158 by Dr-Mx | 1 | 2016-02-23 16:22:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Is London Road still the A269, or has this section been declassified now the A2690 is open? |
| 2 | 2016-02-23 17:16:28 UTC | Dr-Mx | *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit osm.org | |
| 37147997 by edspeth | 1 | 2016-02-19 14:51:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, is way 42801550 and adjoining ways still the B6295? If so, this should be a secondary highway. If not, B6295 needs to be in old_ref rather than ref.Cheers,Mike |
| 29429717 by Another map maker | 1 | 2016-02-18 17:49:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are the roads really named D2 Business Park - this sounds more like the name of the area than the name of the road? |
| 36526006 by Dasto | 1 | 2016-02-01 20:18:11 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I suggest that "Under Construction for Woodside-M1 link road" should go in the description field, not the name field for way 72721875. The name field should only contain the recognised name of the road. You may also wish to use highway=construction and construction=unclassified.Rega... |
| 16064137 by Mauls | 1 | 2016-01-31 16:53:53 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Is there some reason why 220735319 is tagged as highway=no with no other tags? |
| 36734652 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:50:21 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | Why have you changed the name? This section of road is called De Grey Terrace according to the signs and the addresses of the houses on it |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:57:22 UTC | Mike Baggaley | As I understand it, this part of the road is still Avenue Road, with a few houses forming De Grey Terrace, so I have moved what seemed to me to be the less important name to the alt_name field so that the name Avenue Road is contiguous. It does not seem correct to me to have a road name of De Grey T... | |
| 36730463 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:44:10 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The street sign says "Tang Hall Lane 124-138" which is what is down this street.Also "addr:housenumber" should not be used for ways according to the wiki |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:47:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | One needs to use some common sense when reading street signs. The sign saying Tang Hall Lane 124-138 indicates that the street name is Tang Hall Lane with just house numbers 124-138 on this section of the road. If The street name were Tang Hall Lane 124-138, then this would mean that house number 12... | |
| 36735041 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2016-01-22 21:40:21 UTC | Yorvik Prestigitator | The houses on the east side of this street are Railway View and the houses on the west side of this street are Northfield Terrace, this is clearly indicated by local street signs.Why have you changed the street name from "Northfield Terrace / Railway View" to "Northfield Terrace&quo... |
| 2 | 2016-01-23 00:40:06 UTC | Mike Baggaley | The street name is not Northfield Terrace / Railway View, it has two names. I have put one in the name field and the other in the alt_name field, which I believe is the correct way to handle this situation. | |
| 36148747 by Yorvik Prestigitator | 1 | 2016-01-22 10:23:46 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think Kirk Hammerton Business Park is the name of an area, not the name of a road, so I have taken the liberty of removing the road name and adding an industrial area around it.Regards, |
| 25502713 by Mauls | 1 | 2016-01-19 16:36:19 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is way 65698724 really named Pitsford Street Link Road? It sounds more like a description. If it is correct, it might be an idea to add a note indicating where you got it from, due to the unusual nature.Cheers,MikeCheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-01-19 17:51:53 UTC | trigpoint | I have never seen any names on this section of the A50. I have carefully looked for signs saying Uttoxeter Road, but there aren't any.IMHO the names should be removed unless there is verifiable evidence of their existence. | |
| 9176234 by Robert Whittaker | 1 | 2016-01-17 16:50:47 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Robert, is "Bramble Hill Stopboards and Gap" really the name of a road or should this be a description, or is it not a highway at all?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-01-17 18:45:37 UTC | Robert Whittaker | It's certainly a highway of some sort, as it allows access to the dunes/beach. I don't recall the surface, but it may be tarmaced. The name was taken from an official EA sign, so it is the official name of something -- perhaps of the gap in the dunes and the constructs in and around it, rather than ... | |
| 3 | 2016-01-17 18:46:44 UTC | Robert Whittaker | The way in question is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128403160 | |
| 4 | 2016-01-18 10:54:04 UTC | Mike Baggaley | I found a picture at http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1016257 - it looks to me like the stopboards part at least should be in the description field as I assume this describes the wooden planks. | |
| 29915022 by abel801 | 1 | 2016-01-17 23:55:18 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is Future Nocton Park Road the name of the road, or is it a road that will be named Nocton Park Road in the future? If the latter, I suggest changing the name to Nocton Park Road and setting highway=construction with construction=residential or highway=proposed. Cheers, Mike |
| 2 | 2016-01-19 15:23:24 UTC | abel801 | Hi Mike, I really don't known what is the real name, because I only use satellite imagery. | |
| 3 | 2016-01-19 16:30:15 UTC | SomeoneElse | Rather than guesing, might it be better to add an OSM note? The Bing imagery here shows no road at all. What information do you have that there is a road here (now, as opoosed to a proposed or under-construction one)? Did a customer of one of Mapbox's customers report it? | |
| 4 | 2016-01-25 16:02:59 UTC | abel801 | > Hi SomeoneElse, the residential road was added by the [previous mapper](http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319222705/history) and my edit was only to fix the connection. The mapper has [many local edits](http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Lincoln%20Edge/history#map=14/53.1732/-0.3968) and I assume... | |
| 5 | 2016-01-25 17:54:40 UTC | SomeoneElse | In this case I'd be tempted to ask the previous mapper whether it's been built yet. It's quite likely it wasn't when they added it, but might have been now. Also, you could ask them what it's (now) called? | |
| 6 | 2016-02-25 21:40:29 UTC | samely | Message has been sent it to Lincoln Edge. If he answer to me, I'll share it. | |
| 7 | 2016-03-06 15:27:28 UTC | Lincoln Edge | It's open now, and it is called Nocton Park Road. | |
| 8 | 2016-03-21 14:29:28 UTC | samely | Thank you Lincoln Edge! | |
| 25075413 by Heverman | 1 | 2016-01-06 18:21:23 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, "Service Road To Hever Close" does not sound like a valid road name to me, more a description. I can't make sense of your explanation of the rename from Hughenden Close. If the road is signposted Hughenden Close, then that is the name that should be used, whether or not there are any h... |
| 2 | 2016-01-06 18:58:24 UTC | Heverman | I am only interested in Facts. The road was renamed by the Council as I have reported and the roadside sign changed accordingly. You can check with them. The reason, or your opinion on the name, doesnt matter to those who are delivering to residences on this estate. I think the whole concept of o... | |
| 34398998 by Sailor Steve | 1 | 2015-10-05 14:10:16 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi Steve, the name field of a peak (or anything else) should hold the proper noun by which it is known. I do not believe that TP, SP and BM are the names of peaks. If the peak does not have a name, the name field should be left blank.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2015-10-14 10:09:27 UTC | Sailor Steve | Hello Mike,Yes, I think you are right, but I was looking for a way to get unnamed elevations to appear on the standard OSM maps. This seems to be an anomaly because there are huge numbers of unnamed hills and mountains around the world but OSM mapping will not display the height unless there is... | |
| 31201905 by Pashley | 1 | 2015-08-28 17:31:23 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, it is not valid to put two names in the name field. If Quaker Way is an alternate name for Garden Street, please use alt_name or loc_name for it.Cheers,Mike |
| 28256547 by JustStupid | 1 | 2015-08-28 08:46:23 UTC | Mike Baggaley | HI, I do not believe numbers such as 864, 874 are valid road names. I would expect these numbers should be in the local_ref field ( as they are no national references).Regards,Mike |
| 33191328 by Maddog Battie | 1 | 2015-08-10 22:46:32 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note South West Coast Path is the name of a route, which is named on the relation, of which the various paths forming the route are members. It should not be used as the name of path segments as it is not the name of the individual paths. |
| 2 | 2015-08-11 11:43:03 UTC | Maddog Battie | Hi Mike,New to this so comments on what I'm doing wrong are welcome.The reason I'd added the name to the paths was:A) Because it wasn't showing up on the map and I see this as important. I've modified the section between Portloe and Porthpean as that is what I had a gpx file for. This now curr... | |
| 3 | 2015-08-11 12:42:03 UTC | SomeoneElse | Personally, I'd use http://waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=12&lat=50.26969&lon=-4.78722&hill=0# for that... | |
| 4 | 2015-08-11 13:20:14 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM. Tagging highways with the name of a route is a common mistake, and personally I think a little more in the way of guidelines should be provided to new members. One other common mistake with new members (me included) is not realising that when adding a highway, it needs to correct... | |
| 24764776 by Mauls | 1 | 2015-03-09 13:23:47 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Are you sure the name of the water at way 96215794 is Fish Pond? This seems more like a description. |
| 28884942 by Mike Baggaley | 1 | 2015-03-05 02:05:43 UTC | robert | Did you mean to switch the name= on Passmore Edwards Court to an addr:housename=? This has broken a match: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=907839 |
| 2 | 2015-03-06 00:17:25 UTC | Mike Baggaley | oops, I think it should be OK now | |
| 28629957 by OffTheChart | 1 | 2015-02-18 17:03:08 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, to mark a road as private, I believe you should set the tag access=private, rather than setting name=(private). The name field should only contain the name by which the road is nationally known, and if there is no such name, it should be empty.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2015-02-18 17:17:06 UTC | OffTheChart | Unless the map is rendered in everyone's interests (impossible!), I believe the private status is sometimes better spelled out for all to see as guidance. Otherwise it may encourage trespass. I realise this may be controversial :) | |
| 3 | 2015-02-18 18:18:43 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, roads tagged with access=private are clearly shown in pink in the standard OSM rendered map. Users extracting map data for their own purposes can also easily determine that a road is private and take appropriate action (e.g. don't allow routing along it in a GPS). This is not possible using a na... | |
| 4 | 2015-02-18 22:17:48 UTC | OffTheChart | Fine, change it if you like :) | |
| 28000283 by Pawelaa | 1 | 2015-01-13 14:59:38 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you check the drain, way number 320997262 added in this change? I can't see anything there in Bing (I'm not a local) - if this is a narrow channel, can you add area=no or if it is all water, please change to natural=water with water=drain instead of waterway=drain.Cheers,Mike |
| 28067813 by PmaiIkeey | 1 | 2015-01-12 10:54:42 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this road should not be secondary. Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence for how A roads should be tagged. This is nothing to do with how big/busy the road is. All A roads should be either trunk or primary. Secondary roads should have B refs. This way ca... |
| 2 | 2015-01-12 20:00:25 UTC | PmaiIkeey | http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3DsecondaryAccurately fits the bill. Link to smaller town & not part of a major route.Whether another org. has classified it 'A', 'B', 'C' or anything else is immaterial.OSM should be a geographic map, not a neurographic one. OSM should ... | |
| 3 | 2015-01-12 22:59:52 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the description of a secondary road you reference is a generic page describing generally how they are classified. The reference I gave specifies how this general rule should be applied in the UK. I agree that there are quite a few roads in the UK that seem to be relatively minor and don’t ... | |