Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12018-02-20 01:23:08 UTCJayTurnr I assume Naptan import data is important?
22018-02-20 07:41:21 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Jay, NaPTAN data is an import of public transport data from and should be on a node at the position of the bus stop. Not sure how the data ended up on this way.

12018-02-14 12:48:28 UTCDaveF 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.
22018-02-14 13:25:30 UTCMike Baggaley I don't understand your comment. My change was to move two junctions slightly apart to comply with the guidelines at which state:
"Important Consideration When Mapping
All ways which intersect with the junction=roundabout should be...
12018-02-14 10:09:16 UTCMike Baggaley Hi John, on way 560136472, it looks like you have set motor_vehicle=prp. Is this a mistake?

22018-02-14 11:53:33 UTCJohn Grubb Yes, it is. Fat-finger syndrome strikes again! Fixed.
12018-02-05 19:43:10 UTCMike 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?

12018-01-31 13:23:43 UTCGinaroZ Can't work out what you changed here?
22018-01-31 13:39:54 UTCMike Baggaley I split closed way 123192913 in two to clarify it is not an area. Must have missed the comment.
12018-01-23 17:18:04 UTCMike Baggaley HI please note that access=designated is not a valid combination of tag and value - see . You need to use foot=designated for a public footpath.

I have updated ways 554514038, 554514039, 554514040 and 554514041 created in this changeset.
12018-01-22 11:48:22 UTCMike Baggaley Hi in way 549976106 you have put foot=permissive; yes - can you confirm which is correct?

12018-01-22 11:47:52 UTCMike Baggaley Hi in way 548254444 you have put foot=permissive; yes - can you confirm which is correct?

12018-01-22 11:17:20 UTCMike 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.

12018-01-22 08:57:41 UTCMike 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...
22018-01-22 12:14:41 UTCwhitetop666 The road has been set to how google had it, if its been changed since i updated then by all means change it.
12017-12-18 13:14:29 UTCMike 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?

22017-12-18 13:33:43 UTCDaveF After 3 years I'd assume yes, but not walked that way since. Needs a survey.
12017-12-17 16:53:14 UTCMike 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...
22017-12-17 18:02:15 UTCSimon 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.

I don't recall it ever being labelled as such on the streets. A ...
12017-12-17 10:23:30 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, can you confirm whether "New Square Park Access Road" is the actual road name on way 161908134, or is it a description?

22017-12-17 15:33:20 UTCWelshie 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 ...
32017-12-17 16:04:49 UTCMike 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.

12017-12-17 11:10:20 UTCMike Baggaley HI, can you clarify what you mean by foot=limited on way 537845418 ?

12017-12-17 11:05:15 UTCMike 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...
22017-12-17 12:18:49 UTCwill_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.
12017-12-17 10:31:55 UTCMike 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.

22017-12-17 12:59:55 UTCAceweo Mike, your quite right, I must have had a senior moment. I'll make the correction once back on my PC
12017-12-17 10:21:21 UTCMike 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.

22017-12-19 13:17:12 UTCtms13 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...
32017-12-20 13:35:20 UTCtms13 I've just been down to Ferrytoll - FRB is definitely signed as A9000 on the approaches to the roundabout.
12017-12-17 10:16:06 UTCMike 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...
12017-12-13 10:29:42 UTCMike 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?

22017-12-13 11:16:03 UTCMoretonmill 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
12017-12-13 10:03:11 UTCMike Baggaley HI, can you please clarify what you meant by access=public on way 538322682 ?(Public is not a standard value as defined at .)

12017-12-13 09:56:09 UTCMike 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)?

22017-12-14 11:05:43 UTCbrianboru Mike

I'm not sure what I meant and I can't even remember if this footway is open or not so I just deleted the tag


12017-12-13 09:42:44 UTCMike 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)?
22017-12-22 18:21:17 UTCRag2711 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.
12017-12-13 09:24:17 UTCMike 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...
12017-12-12 17:14:52 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-12-12 18:29:18 UTCm902 Hi Mike,
This is a legal public footpath (foot=designated) but it is blocked at the stream because there is no bridge ( and there is also no stile over the fence on the west side of the stream ( With the agre...
32017-12-12 18:43:53 UTCMike 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...
42017-12-12 22:56:36 UTCm902 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.
12017-12-12 17:07:00 UTCMike 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...
22017-12-12 19:18:55 UTCAJR-GB Hi Mike, I am local and will do but will be in the new year as I am traveling until then. Thanks
12017-12-12 16:25:24 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Mike, way 55424394 also has the South West Coast Path running along it.
12017-12-12 16:13:34 UTCMike 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...
22017-12-27 20:25:46 UTCJoe E The way is closed and the reason correctly tagged as construction=yes as per
though the re-opening date was unavailable at the time.
12017-12-12 16:08:38 UTCMike 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?

22017-12-13 14:29:24 UTCMike 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.
12017-12-12 14:10:56 UTCMike 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.

12017-12-06 22:02:28 UTCmatt_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...
22017-12-07 08:31:04 UTCMike Baggaley Excellent, looks good to me!
12017-12-06 09:31:18 UTCMike 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?

22017-12-06 22:50:58 UTCndm If there were pedestrian access it would have a sidewalk tag.
12017-11-03 09:11:55 UTCMike 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...
22017-11-04 20:53:49 UTCMacLondon 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...
12017-11-02 17:46:58 UTCSK53 So you are also the person silently removing my bridge=footbridge tags too. Can you at the very least ask about these before changing them.
22017-11-02 17:54:25 UTCMike Baggaley Apologies for inadvertently failing to add a comment on the occasional change. If a way has highway=footway and bridge=yes then we know it is a footbridge.
32017-11-06 10:17:09 UTCSomeoneElse Mike,
Changing "bridge=<value>" to "bridge=yes" removes descriptive information from OSM. Please don't do it.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
12017-11-02 09:19:07 UTCwill_p Hi Mike,

I object to the change you have made here. You have changed bridge=chain to bridge=yes. How has the data been improved by this? You appear to only be stripping out information. I don't believe there is any consensus that bridges must only be tagged with bridge=yes. bridge=chain identifie...
22017-11-02 09:26:25 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Will, the reason for doing this is that bridge=chain is not rendered as a bridge by OSM, and is not included in the list of approved values. The bridge has a note on it saying it is a chain so no information has been lost.
32017-11-02 13:37:22 UTCRichard note= tags aren't machine-readable - so in practice, moving things from a machine-readable tag to a note means that they are practically lost to all consumers.

At the very least, this should have been moved to bridge:structure= rather than a note= .

There is no "list of approved values&qu...
42017-11-02 13:39:46 UTCSK53 On the contrary information has been lost: changing a tag to a note is always information loss. You are changing tagging for the renderer, a practice which has been discouraged for many years. Instead you should a) file an issue with the rendering github repository and b) improve the wiki documentat...
52017-11-02 13:43:43 UTCSomeoneElse To be honest, as there's no highway or railway over it I'd add the "man_made=bridge" object (as a closed way) if possible.
It'd donkey's years since I've been to the Priest House though, so my memory isn't up to it.
62017-11-02 15:56:09 UTCMike Baggaley The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges. For example, there were quite a few bridge=culvert tags which on examination mostly turned out to be waterways below roads and should not have had ...
72017-11-02 17:37:33 UTCSomeoneElse > The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges.

Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:
82017-11-02 17:46:02 UTCMike Baggaley >Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:

What you have actually done there is build your list of 'approved' values :)
92017-11-02 17:50:24 UTCRichard > it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges

That's a genuine issue, but one which would be better fixed by removing the not-actually-a-bridge values than by removing the actually-a-bridge values. ;)
102017-11-02 17:53:59 UTCSK53 No, he's built a list of values which he finds useful. One of the main points of OSM is to allow the description of the unusual & idiosyncratic because a rigid list of approved values inevitably cannot cope. People enforcing a set of values devalues what OSM is about. For instance you have chang...
112017-11-03 12:27:53 UTCSomeoneElse Yes - what SK53 has said is correct. It's probably clearer to look at some of the other examples in the same file (barriers, shops, offices). For example, depending on the application it might make sense to render or otherwise process a cycle_barrier the same as a motorcycle_barrier or it absolute...
12017-11-02 10:34:47 UTCOffTheChart I see you've been removing names from my hard work identifying all the types of WW2 Bunkers on Jersey. Can I ask why? From previous discussion it seems you're heavily focussed on getting the database "correct", but this is spoiling the usefullness of the standard website map. I have been t...
22017-11-02 11:26:04 UTCOffTheChart Partial apologies, if you've only touched the ones named "bunker", as you've undone less of my work than I initially thought. But I still maintain that explorers using the map would be interested to see that the unspecified bunkers are indeed bunkers, as there's no other indication on the ...
32017-11-02 16:32:37 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, moving the bunker information from the name field to the specific tag seemed to be improving the level of information, not 'undoing your work'. However, I did not realise that the standard OSM map doesn't render military=bunker. Ideally we should get this functionality added to the standard ren...
42017-11-02 18:06:42 UTCOffTheChart Thanks for your reply. If we can just leave things as they are for now, please, as that seems easier and best all around! Cheers
12017-10-29 01:12:25 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, in this changeset way 37132157 which is tagged as a public footpath has had foot=no set. Can you please review?

22017-10-29 01:18:44 UTCMike Baggaley There seem to be several other ways that also have odd looking access tags.
32017-10-31 08:12:57 UTCAJR-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.
42017-10-31 08:17:26 UTCMike Baggaley Sorry, I was unclear, I meant it has designation=public_footpath, which should imply foot=designated.
52017-10-31 08:43:57 UTCAJR-GB Thanks for the clarification, i will double check
12017-10-30 20:26:21 UTCMike 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...
12017-10-30 19:24:43 UTCMike 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?

22017-10-31 06:54:52 UTCjempi My error indeed. Met the farmer when lost the path. Nice chap!
12017-10-30 18:25:12 UTCMike 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...
12017-05-18 13:43:57 UTCMike 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?

22017-05-18 16:54:02 UTCRobert 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...
32017-07-17 19:57:16 UTCMike 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...
42017-09-19 13:26:44 UTCRobert Whittaker There are actually quite a few other ways tagged with highway=no in the UK:

If 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...
52017-10-29 17:54:43 UTCMike 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...
62017-10-30 08:42:41 UTCRobert 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...
12017-10-29 16:05:53 UTCMike 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....
22017-10-29 17:07:28 UTCjpennycook 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 again.

Regarding the motor_vehicle restriction - I a...
32017-10-29 17:13:51 UTCjpennycook fixed in changesets #53347402 and #53346966
12017-10-29 01:16:40 UTCMike 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?

22017-10-29 11:03:46 UTCDr-Mx *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit
32017-10-29 11:38:05 UTCMike 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_...
42017-10-29 15:00:57 UTCDr-Mx *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit
52017-10-29 15:39:04 UTCMike 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...
62017-10-29 15:59:59 UTCDr-Mx *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit
12017-10-28 22:45:53 UTCMike 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...
22017-10-29 11:45:48 UTCtitocalata 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?
32017-10-29 15:15:19 UTCMike 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...
12017-10-29 01:22:38 UTCMike 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?

22017-10-29 12:06:16 UTCdrnoble 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?
32017-10-29 15:10:24 UTCMike 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...
12017-10-29 10:49:47 UTCMike 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,
12017-10-29 10:39:03 UTCMike 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...
12017-10-29 00:25:02 UTCMike Baggaley HI, way 175638841 has access=no, but has the North Cheshire Way along it. Can you check whether it is open to pedestrians?

12017-10-29 00:18:11 UTCMike 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?

12017-10-29 00:15:53 UTCMike 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?

22017-10-31 14:22:32 UTCsmb1001 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.
32017-11-06 10:24:40 UTCSomeoneElse So should e.g. 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,
42017-11-06 10:42:20 UTCsmb1001 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...
12017-10-23 07:26:11 UTCBCNorwich 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.
22017-10-23 12:51:11 UTCDkeith 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
32017-10-23 16:56:32 UTCBCNorwich 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
42017-10-29 00:01:07 UTCMike 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?

52017-10-29 07:45:43 UTCBCNorwich Hi Mike Baggaley,
You are correct, it wasn't me and yes it seems wrong.
I looked up Aberdeenshire list of streets ( )
which indicate...
12017-10-28 23:12:54 UTCMike 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?

22017-10-29 08:23:57 UTCtomrobin29 Hi Mike
I didn’t create the information or the way, I have only added a tag for the speed limits. But I shall have a look.
12017-10-28 23:08:06 UTCMike 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...
12017-10-28 22:31:28 UTCMike 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...
12017-10-28 22:21:41 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I think way 530512895 should have vehicle=no rather than access=no unless there is specifically a pedestrian prohibition. Can you check?

22017-10-29 07:32:36 UTCACS1986 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,
12017-09-11 13:13:56 UTCMike 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
22017-09-16 10:53:55 UTCfcrump 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...
32017-09-16 11:46:06 UTCfcrump 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.
42017-09-16 13:30:05 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Frazer, the 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.

12017-09-11 13:55:57 UTCMike 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 indicates that tunnel=yes is the correct value. Can you please explain why you think tunnel=underpass...
22017-09-11 15:05:03 UTCwill_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 ...
12017-09-11 13:43:51 UTCMike 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.

12017-09-11 13:39:31 UTCMike 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...
22017-09-11 14:17:35 UTCTJS 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,...
12017-09-07 11:10:27 UTCMike 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).

22017-09-07 12:31:31 UTCChay Farzaneh Hi Sorry did this in a rush I've allowed foot and bicycles now. Thanks

12017-08-31 13:06:52 UTCMike 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...
12017-08-30 09:58:58 UTCMike 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...
12017-08-29 19:50:19 UTCDaveF Why didn't you add the correct church title?
22017-08-29 19:55:25 UTCMike Baggaley HI Dave, I didn't know what the proper name was.
12017-08-28 12:37:05 UTCMike 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.

12017-08-24 20:10:13 UTCMike 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".

22017-08-24 20:30:39 UTCABZ_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...
12017-08-24 17:25:57 UTCMike 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?

22017-08-24 18:34:37 UTCkrd_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
12017-08-24 17:21:40 UTCMike 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...
22017-10-21 18:28:11 UTCJohn 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...
12017-08-24 17:12:42 UTCMike 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=...
12017-08-23 17:28:13 UTCsdoerr Should node 528921324 be leisure=pitch?
22017-08-23 17:31:46 UTCMike Baggaley Oops, yes. Will correct! Thanks for letting me know.

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

42017-08-23 18:20:20 UTCMike Baggaley Doh! Give me a brain. Hopefully correct now.
12017-08-22 13:32:34 UTCMike 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,
12017-08-22 13:17:36 UTCMike 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...
22017-10-03 15:48:46 UTCmarkbeverley 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.
12017-08-17 10:23:09 UTCchillly The name on the board above the shop front is 'Chemist'. I surveyed it and it is still so.

Please don't just armchair this stuff - check first!

I will revert your change.
22017-08-17 10:36:59 UTCMike Baggaley The name is not Chemist, it is P. Rowbotham Dispensing Chemist according to
32017-08-17 11:07:24 UTCchillly The name on the shop says 'Chemist'. I know that because I have been there. You cannot use copyright sources to update the name. I will revert your change and ask the DWG to intervene if you use copyright sources in OSM again.
42017-08-17 11:09:22 UTCMike Baggaley You will find his name is also on the front of the shop.
52017-08-17 11:10:27 UTCchillly Which is why I added the name as the operator.
62017-08-17 11:19:24 UTCMike Baggaley I suggest in the spirit of compromise the name be set to either P Rowbotham Chemist. or just P Rowbotham. The name of the business is clearly not Chemist.
72017-08-17 11:27:22 UTCMike Baggaley I also note that the NHS Choices data is made available under the Open Government Licence - see
82017-08-17 11:33:14 UTCchillly Wow, just how far are you going with this?

Read the link again. DOWNLOADED files are OGL, the web page you directed me to is copyright. I doubt anyone in the NHS would care, but you were prepared to use a copyright source before you then checked to try to climb out of the hole you just dug.

12017-08-15 14:14:15 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-08-15 14:19:45 UTCjim197 Fair enough. I only used it because it was an option offered by iD. I will switch to 'private'.
32017-08-15 15:01:21 UTCMike 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.
42017-08-15 15:12:01 UTCjim197 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.
12017-08-15 14:10:55 UTCMike 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...
22017-08-15 21:29:39 UTCRuss 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.
12017-08-14 11:15:57 UTCMike 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...
22017-08-14 18:03:41 UTCSetithing 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.
12017-08-13 22:04:18 UTCMike 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.
22017-08-14 09:58:40 UTCPeterPan99 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...
32017-08-14 10:38:51 UTCMike 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...
12017-08-13 21:48:30 UTCMike 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.

22017-08-14 06:43:35 UTCPink 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.
12017-08-08 13:36:04 UTCmsevilla00 I edited using this overpass query:
and following this OSM Wiki advice:
and as you could see in Streets:
22017-08-09 16:41:50 UTCMike 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...
32017-08-09 21:57:05 UTCmsevilla00 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 "...
42017-08-09 22:45:36 UTCmsevilla00 I traslated this topic to the mailining list for General discussion for users in Great Britain:
Please, consider to joint the conversation there to argue within the British community.
52017-08-09 22:57:20 UTCalejandroscf 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,
62017-08-10 06:22:57 UTCescada 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...
72017-08-10 11:48:13 UTCtrigpoint 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...
82017-08-10 16:54:21 UTCRobJN 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. ...
92017-08-10 17:08:54 UTCtrigpoint " / " 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.
102017-08-10 19:38:05 UTCMike Baggaley Quoting from the Wales tagging guidelines, at "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 ...
112017-08-14 20:36:09 UTCmsevilla00 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:

I disagree with the change and I consider it arbi...
12017-08-09 21:52:52 UTCMike 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?

22017-08-09 22:12:49 UTCJamesKingdom 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.
12017-08-09 16:50:17 UTCMike 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.

12017-08-07 13:06:58 UTCMike 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.

22017-08-07 13:28:59 UTCSomeoneElse Yes, it really is called that.
12017-08-04 14:14:47 UTCMike 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).

12017-08-03 15:12:38 UTCMike 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.

22017-08-03 15:19:15 UTCMike 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.
12017-08-03 11:40:01 UTCMike 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 ...
12017-08-02 11:59:54 UTCMike 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...
12017-07-29 11:30:52 UTCMike 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.

22017-07-30 21:24:57 UTCNeil Bauers I have done as you suggested. Thanks for the hint.
12017-07-27 16:02:02 UTCMike 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, ...
12017-07-27 15:48:41 UTCMike 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?

22017-07-28 23:28:23 UTCAll Good Things Your quite right, I've removed the name
12017-07-27 15:45:55 UTCMike 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?

12017-07-24 16:04:08 UTCMike 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?

22017-07-26 19:55:11 UTCkrd_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
32017-07-27 06:18:30 UTCMike 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.

42017-07-27 06:28:00 UTCkrd_mapper I'll look at other similar ways in the area and make the corrections along this route.
12017-07-24 20:29:10 UTCpaulbiv The wiki has access=no as a valid tag. Removing access=no needs survey evidence that access is permitted (It's BAe land).
22017-07-24 21:21:48 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, the other two tags removed were invalid and are the reason I edited the way. The existing foot=yes tag already says that pedestrian access is allowed. As a footway does not allow any other access by default, the access=no is not changing the access for any other transport mode, and is overridden...
32017-07-24 21:28:03 UTCpaulbiv I'll take a look next time I'm over that way. Edge of defence related land could easily have a footpath inside the fence, and users could easily tag that as foot=yes without realising that implies public access.
42017-07-24 21:31:03 UTCMike Baggaley Excellent, we'll know for certain then. Thanks.
12017-07-24 15:59:09 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-07-24 18:23:05 UTCnickjohnston 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.
12017-07-24 15:54:07 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-07-24 16:13:42 UTCSomeoneElse @Mike For info see and - it's very much a work in progress at the moment.
12017-07-19 13:43:17 UTCMike 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?

22017-07-19 16:53:24 UTCuser_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 ...
32017-07-20 16:16:49 UTCMike Baggaley H, thanks for the info. I have moved the Lea Valley Walk to go along the public footpath.

12017-07-20 12:47:18 UTCMike 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...
22017-07-20 15:57:35 UTCBuschebabau 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!

12017-07-20 12:40:45 UTCMike 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).

12017-07-19 13:17:22 UTCMike 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?
12017-07-17 15:14:03 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Please note the The Ridgeway is the name of the long distance route, and individual paths segments should not have this name.

12017-07-16 09:57:20 UTCMike 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?

22017-07-24 21:14:20 UTCValleys Cycling 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.
12017-07-16 07:50:19 UTCMike 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)?

12017-07-13 16:57:52 UTCMike 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 and

12017-07-13 16:47:47 UTCMike 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...
22017-07-13 21:11:02 UTCDaveF Agreed - Done.
12017-07-13 15:49:55 UTCMike 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.

22017-07-13 16:34:10 UTCrobw Source docs at are unclear. Will removed the (Old) for now and add a note.
12017-07-13 11:49:18 UTCMike 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...
12017-07-04 13:40:48 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-07-04 14:24:36 UTCMartin 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...
32017-07-04 14:55:34 UTCMike 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...
42017-07-04 15:24:59 UTCMartin 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...
52017-07-04 15:48:22 UTCMike 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...
62017-07-04 16:36:33 UTCMartin 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...
72017-07-04 16:49:07 UTCMartin 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...
12017-07-04 13:27:58 UTCMike 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.

12017-07-02 14:57:54 UTCMike 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?

22017-07-02 15:38:50 UTCconfusedbuffalo 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
32017-07-02 22:58:28 UTCMike 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.
12017-07-02 16:45:31 UTCMike 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...
22017-07-02 22:21:13 UTCzorque 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,

32017-07-02 22:28:27 UTCMike 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.
12017-07-02 16:50:37 UTCMike 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 ...
12017-07-02 16:37:55 UTCMike 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...
22017-07-04 11:05:34 UTClakedistrict 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.
12017-07-02 11:57:10 UTCMike 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...
12017-07-02 11:51:33 UTCMike 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?

22017-07-02 13:15:19 UTCMartin 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...
12017-06-20 23:46:19 UTCMike 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. ...
22017-06-21 10:02:51 UTCperegrination 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
You could add access=yes if you wish, not sure if it's needed.
32017-06-21 12:56:58 UTCMike Baggaley Thanks. Adding access=yes would actually imply that all other transport modes can also use the path, so not a good idea.

12017-06-20 23:18:52 UTCMike Baggaley HI, can you please clarify why the name Haul Road is enclosed in brackets - roads are not normally named like this?

22017-06-21 12:35:33 UTCdavidearl 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...
32017-06-21 12:53:52 UTCMike 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).
42017-06-21 13:04:36 UTCdavidearl 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).
12017-06-20 23:38:24 UTCMike 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...
12017-06-20 23:24:16 UTCMike 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?

22017-06-27 21:13:39 UTCHarry 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 ...
32017-06-29 22:17:20 UTCSK53 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.
42017-06-30 08:06:36 UTCHarry Wood Yeah I think all of those footpaths should capture that pretty well. Here we're just talking about this section: Now foot routable. But somebody might improve it by...
52017-06-30 09:32:57 UTCSK53 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 ...
12017-06-20 23:09:59 UTCMike 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?

22017-06-21 13:36:46 UTCsixfoureight Thanks,
Just fixed that
12017-06-20 20:26:16 UTCMike 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.

12017-06-20 20:07:57 UTCMike 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?

12017-06-09 14:37:44 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, please see hte UK tagging guidelines at - these state that highways should be mapped as follows:

A roads with primary status (signed green) highway=trunk or trunk_link
A roads highway=primary or primary_link
B roads highw...
12017-06-07 13:23:59 UTCMike 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...
22017-06-07 13:38:10 UTCsaintam1 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...
12017-06-07 13:15:00 UTCMike 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)?

12017-06-07 12:51:25 UTCMike 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?

22017-06-07 16:57:03 UTCurViator My oversight! Thanks, Mike. Now corrected.
12017-06-07 12:47:14 UTCMike 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...
12017-06-04 22:09:54 UTCMike 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 ?

22017-06-06 12:28:21 UTCESL1A2011 Ok, thanks. I've changed it to customers.
12017-06-04 22:01:07 UTCMike 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).

22017-06-10 09:13:09 UTCDartymoor 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...
12017-06-04 20:07:35 UTCMike Baggaley HI, on way 495029191, did you intend oneway=yes or oneway=no (oneway=service is not a standard value)?

22017-06-05 15:38:16 UTCkevjs1982 Whoops, that was supposed to be oneway=yes. Fixed.
12017-06-04 19:03:08 UTCMike 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...
12017-06-04 18:17:19 UTCMike 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?

12017-06-04 17:59:02 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I notice way 208485034 and adjoining ways have highway=tertiary and ref=A6055. One of these must be incorrect.

12017-06-04 17:14:53 UTCMike 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?

12017-06-04 17:05:44 UTCMike 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.

22017-06-04 17:23:09 UTCNorthBeric Not sure how I managed that, that was an accident. Thanks for the spot.
12017-05-12 22:51:58 UTCMike 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?

22017-05-12 23:05:12 UTCzeusfaber 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.
32017-05-12 23:13:47 UTCzeusfaber Done now. Thanks for pointing it out. A,
12017-05-12 22:33:54 UTCMike Baggaley HI way 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?

22017-05-12 22:44:14 UTCalbjorgui 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...
12017-05-12 22:19:30 UTCMike 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?

12017-05-08 07:55:25 UTCOffTheChart The roads inside the gates are known by the Gate Numbers, so it wasn't incorrect as it was. If this doesn't render on the map I will revert your changes. Will you ***PLEASE*** consider adding new detail rather than meddling with existing features?
22017-05-08 09:14:18 UTCMike Baggaley Hi if the roads inside are known by the gate numbers then I stand corrected. It would be useful if you added a note to say that this is the case as this is extremely unusual. However, roads should only be named with the name tag if that name is one which would be used outside the local area (i.e. wo...
32017-05-08 12:55:54 UTCOffTheChart I've put a lot of effort into the Jersey part of OSM, as I live here and actually know the island and its quirks. My aim has been to produce a map that is useful in its standard presentation. It's frustrating that there have been several instances of things changing and affecting this state of affai...
12017-05-07 23:06:53 UTCMike 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)?

12017-05-06 16:16:59 UTCMike 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...
12017-05-06 15:52:36 UTCMike 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...
12017-05-04 17:21:43 UTCMike 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)?

12017-05-04 17:18:21 UTCMike 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?

12017-05-04 17:13:59 UTCMike 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...
12017-04-06 10:06:43 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, is foot allowed as well? Perhaps access=no could be removed?

Cheers, Mike
22017-04-06 16:53:56 UTCtrigpoint 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.
32017-05-03 10:13:56 UTCjogger333 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:
These tags should be used in combination with an appropriate highwa...
42017-05-03 10:45:54 UTCMike 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...
52017-05-03 11:13:59 UTCjogger333 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...
62017-05-03 19:05:47 UTCMike 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 ...
72017-05-04 07:42:55 UTCjogger333 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...
12017-05-03 11:20:27 UTCMike 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...
22017-05-03 16:47:21 UTCSBaker15 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!
12017-05-03 11:12:53 UTCMike 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?

12017-05-02 19:07:04 UTCtrigpoint 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
22017-05-03 11:07:01 UTCMike 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 It certa...
32017-05-03 16:47:06 UTCtrigpoint 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...
42017-05-06 14:39:07 UTCtrigpoint No response so am reverting it based on my local knowledge gathered over many years
12017-04-30 13:33:36 UTCMike 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?

22017-05-02 19:51:58 UTCRichard Carden It is a signed bicycle route between the canal and NCN56.
32017-05-02 20:01:53 UTCMike 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 - but official is not mentioned in the main access page at
12017-05-01 12:29:05 UTCMike 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...
12017-04-30 13:18:07 UTCMike 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.

22017-04-30 16:22:04 UTCStephen 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?
32017-04-30 16:47:09 UTCMike 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...
12017-04-30 13:31:22 UTCMike 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?

12017-04-30 13:28:35 UTCMike 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.

12017-04-30 13:25:18 UTCMike 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?

22017-04-30 19:25:35 UTCecatmur Absolutely, thanks for fixing it. Ed
12017-04-30 11:37:20 UTCMike 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,
12017-04-30 11:33:12 UTCMike 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?

22017-05-03 20:50:54 UTCtms13 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.
12017-04-17 16:41:15 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I notice you have created a new relation for the Nene Way, however, there is an existing Nene Way relation at . Can you move the ways you have added to your relation to the existing one and delete the new relation?

22017-04-17 17:36:54 UTCnbcaldon 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...
32017-04-17 17:48:36 UTCMike Baggaley I have moved way 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.

42017-04-17 18:18:20 UTCnbcaldon 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
52017-04-17 19:13:04 UTCMike 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 If you have...
62017-04-17 19:59:41 UTCnbcaldon 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
72017-04-17 23:05:00 UTCGinaroZ 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.
82017-04-18 05:27:31 UTCnbcaldon 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.
12017-04-17 17:01:49 UTCMike 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...
22017-04-18 08:09:33 UTCPink 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?
32017-04-18 15:06:30 UTCPink 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...
12017-04-17 16:19:41 UTCMike 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 . T...
22017-04-17 21:11:58 UTCNeil 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.
12017-04-15 14:32:56 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Martin, please do not add names that are descriptive, e.g. Playground - we already know it is a playground from its tag.

22017-04-15 14:54:44 UTCMartin 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...
32017-04-15 15:04:03 UTCMike 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...
42017-04-15 15:19:49 UTCtrigpoint 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.
52017-04-15 15:26:03 UTCMartin 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:
62017-04-15 15:29:16 UTCtrigpoint 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.
72017-04-15 15:40:56 UTCMartin 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).
82017-04-15 15:44:35 UTCtrigpoint 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.
92017-04-15 16:03:48 UTCMartin 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.
102017-04-15 17:28:33 UTCMike 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...
12017-04-14 20:34:42 UTCACS1986 Hi Mike,
Adding foot=yes would allow pedestrians whilst maintaining the traffic restrictions.
Removing the access=no tag to allow pedestrians has the unintended effect of allowing some types of traffic which aren't permitted by the road signs egs. horses and non-motorised vehicles.
22017-04-14 23:48:13 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, Adam,
I must admit I haven't checked to see whether there is a no horses sign, but these are extremely rare in the UK, so I'd be very surprised if there is one there - they are normally only found at tunnels and other places that could be dangerous. Regarding vehicular traffic, I had thought th...
32017-04-15 12:27:45 UTCACS1986 Hi,
The signs are the blue circular signs meaning a road for buses, cycles and taxis only. Obviously pedestrians are also allowed unless explicitly prohibited.
access=no, foot=yes, bus=yes, taxi=yes bicycle=yes seems a more accurate representation of these restrictions than motor_vehicle=no, bus=y...
42017-04-15 13:47:39 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, there are several reasons I normally choose setting motor_vehicle=no over access=no and overriding specific types of access. One is that setting access=no generally sets an incorrect value for horses - neither the blue signs nor the no entry signs prohibit horses, but I don't want to explicitly ...
12017-04-14 13:36:57 UTCMike 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.

22017-04-14 14:48:54 UTCMartin 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...
32017-04-14 15:01:17 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Martin, I should have explained that the OSM standard view doesn't show long distance paths, but if you go to 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...
42017-04-14 15:29:18 UTCMartin 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. :)
12017-04-13 14:40:52 UTCMike 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...
12017-04-12 10:26:28 UTCMike 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...
22017-04-12 12:00:26 UTCJohn 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...
32017-04-12 12:13:43 UTCMike 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 . There are lots of other renederers of OSM data,...
42017-04-12 13:04:15 UTCJohn 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 (, as the primary/premier/whatever perception of the product, as it were. It seems odd that you would include a ...
12017-04-12 10:34:23 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-04-12 13:02:43 UTCALY2010 Ok by me
12017-04-10 13:45:29 UTCMike 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.

22017-04-10 14:09:28 UTCgurglypipe Done.
12017-04-10 13:36:53 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, in this change Fountain Court (485346075) has area=permissive, which is not valid. Did you mean area=yes, access=permissive?

22017-04-10 18:48:39 UTCWeasel-Wiesel Yes, I did. Thanks for pointing that out. Changed to area=yes and access=permissive.
12017-04-09 07:36:52 UTCMike 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.

22017-04-09 19:56:57 UTCc0d0 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.
12017-04-05 17:09:22 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, are pedestrians actually prohibited from ways and (access=no has been specified)?

22017-04-05 18:04:08 UTCMacLondon 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 and respectively.
32017-04-09 06:41:19 UTCMike 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...
12017-04-07 13:40:09 UTCMike 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.

12017-04-06 10:12:13 UTCMike 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 Can you ple...
22017-04-06 10:56:21 UTCRobert Whittaker The ways in question are and . 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...
32017-04-06 12:01:47 UTCMike 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...
12017-04-05 22:04:36 UTCMike 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.

12017-04-05 21:36:15 UTCMike 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

12017-04-05 17:21:34 UTCMike 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...
22017-04-05 17:26:01 UTCjpennycook Hello Mike.

I will take a look shortly, and get back to you.

32017-04-05 17:28:36 UTCjpennycook I see what you mean about the London Street bus access roads - I will fix it. Thanks for pointing that out.
42017-04-05 18:14:02 UTCjpennycook Hello Mike.

I've changed access=no to motor_vehicle=no, which seems the easiest thing to do.

Thanks again,

12017-03-14 20:02:06 UTCMike 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 ?
22017-03-14 22:41:49 UTCblackadder 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?
32017-03-14 22:42:12 UTCblackadder s/was/wasn't
12017-03-14 09:10:19 UTCMike 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,
12017-03-14 01:28:25 UTCMike Baggaley HI, this change seems to have inadvertently removed the highway tag on way 420606034. Can you please check what you intended?

22017-03-14 09:31:16 UTCyourealwaysbe 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...
12017-03-14 01:23:45 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, the foot value on way 477199214 seems to be incomplete. Can you please review it?

12017-03-14 01:22:21 UTCMike 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?

12017-03-14 01:17:14 UTCMike 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...
22017-03-15 20:12:49 UTCdudone Hi Mike

No 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...
12017-03-14 01:05:34 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Chris, I think you need access:conditional=yes@(Mar-Oct) and also access=no

This 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...
22017-03-17 16:34:37 UTCChrisHodgesUK 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...
12017-03-14 00:53:32 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-03-14 13:37:33 UTCLivingWithDragons 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.
32017-03-16 11:21:00 UTCSK53 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 :-)
12017-03-14 00:46:31 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I notice that access=designated has been added to this track. This is not a valid combination - please see for details. I would also normally expect to see designation=public_footpath along with foot=designated.

Happy mapping,
12017-03-14 00:41:18 UTCMike 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 for details.

12017-03-13 23:24:44 UTCMike 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...
12017-03-13 23:15:00 UTCMike 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.

22017-03-15 11:45:13 UTCmountainmonkey Well spotted, thanks. These roads are open for non motorised users so I have corrected the access tags to reflect this.
12017-03-13 22:55:08 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-03-14 07:55:48 UTCJamesKingdom Fixed.
12017-03-13 22:38:36 UTCMike 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?

12017-03-13 22:30:56 UTCMike 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.

22017-03-14 06:06:33 UTCMartin Borsje Hi MIke

I 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....OK


12017-03-13 22:26:40 UTCMike 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?

22017-03-14 09:08:48 UTCThomas Jarvis kk
Reverting back to secondary
12017-03-13 22:15:50 UTCMike 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.

12017-03-13 20:56:56 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-03-13 21:02:48 UTCjpennycook 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.

32017-03-14 12:54:26 UTCjpennycook Hello Mike

Clearly I only thought about it, but didn't fix it. Hopefully this is now fixed in changesets #46834542 and
42017-03-14 12:54:40 UTCjpennycook #46840173

12017-03-13 20:41:59 UTCMike 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.

12017-02-24 13:15:39 UTCMike 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...
12017-02-23 18:31:23 UTCMike 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.

22017-02-24 12:56:44 UTCZugführer 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.
32017-02-24 13:07:26 UTCMike Baggaley Ok, I will just remove the name then.
12017-02-23 18:46:48 UTCMike 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 ...
12017-02-21 15:29:53 UTCMike 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).

22017-02-21 16:51:58 UTCTayportMike 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
12017-02-21 15:22:39 UTCMike 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...
22017-03-06 20:34:54 UTCnickbits 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.
12017-02-17 20:59:51 UTCMike 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.

12017-02-17 16:07:18 UTCYorvik Prestigitator You might not like their name, but Pharmacy is the name of this shop and is proudly displayed above the window (as can be seen in this streetview photo)
Would you like to undo this change?
22017-02-17 16:27:24 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I believe the correct name is Living Care Pharmacy - I've set that as the name. You can see details at

12017-02-15 12:30:59 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I think you have inadvertently made a mistake with way . It now has highway="track; footway" and shouldn't have two values. Can you please correct this?

12017-02-15 12:21:32 UTCMike 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.


22017-02-15 12:39:32 UTCAntonyW Mike,

Yes. I've tidied up the tags.

12017-02-13 13:53:53 UTCMike 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...
22017-02-13 19:54:43 UTCtinnishill 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...
32017-02-13 20:17:26 UTCMike 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...
42017-02-13 21:18:13 UTCtinnishill Right, I've given that a go using the Potlach editor.
12017-02-13 13:43:05 UTCMike 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?

22017-02-13 19:41:52 UTCtinnishill Yep, that was the idea. I'll change it.
12017-02-10 14:45:59 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-02-13 09:53:15 UTCSpearmint 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...
32017-02-13 10:58:36 UTCMike 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,...
42017-02-13 11:54:48 UTCSpearmint 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
12017-02-11 09:01:35 UTCMike 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,
12017-02-11 08:53:01 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I don't understand way that was added in this change set. Can you take a look at it and check what you intended?

12017-02-10 14:53:44 UTCMike 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....
12017-02-10 14:34:56 UTCMike 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.

12017-02-10 00:29:33 UTCDaveF Hi
Why did you split these into two?
Google Streetview:
I hope it's not because of a failing in mkgmap again.
22017-02-10 09:14:18 UTCMike Baggaley HI Dave,

You can see why I split them by looking at the OSM rendered map - it only shows one of the facilities. However, the primary reason is that the shop and post office have different details that cannot be represented correctly together. If you look at these details you will see that the new...
12017-02-07 20:02:08 UTCGinaroZ While it's good you've removed the unnecessary name from the school, would it not be better to improve the map by adding the actual name?
You could have a look at for the name
22017-02-07 20:29:06 UTCMike Baggaley HI, yes you are quite right. I had not seen the list you mention before.

However, I am going through a process of removing a few hundred of these throughout the UK (not just schools) and looking every one up would be too time consuming, as I don't necessarily know the postcode areas. Also, the w...
32017-02-08 17:40:04 UTCGinaroZ Well in this case I googled the village name + primary school and visited the website to confirm the name/location.
There's also the website (not working at the moment) which uses OS open data to add the polygon and name data.
Not sure I'd rely on people noticing there'...
42017-02-09 08:26:37 UTCMike Baggaley The error checking website flags schools with no name as errors, so they should get noticed. Thanks for the info on post offices.

12017-02-08 22:32:16 UTCMike 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.

22017-02-09 09:10:58 UTCAndrew Heaton You're correct, my mistake. I've removed the 'name' now.
12017-02-07 16:13:52 UTCMike 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 ...
22017-02-07 16:24:09 UTCKen_traveline Hi Mike
The 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...
12017-02-07 14:46:50 UTCMike Baggaley HI highway=byway is deprecated and should no longer be used - please see and . Can you please update with whichever of the alternatives is the correct one?

12017-02-07 14:27:05 UTCMike 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.

12017-02-07 14:18:00 UTCMike 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...
22017-02-07 17:47:42 UTCMintra Ah yes, I have removed the tag.
12017-02-01 12:24:20 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, can you check whether you intended to create a route with just a single way belonging to it at It doesn't seem to add anything.

22017-02-01 21:48:11 UTCTitoCasq Hi Mike

I don't know what you are talking about. Just correct what you think is wrong.

32017-02-01 22:29:04 UTCMike Baggaley Ok, I've deleted the relation.

12017-02-01 12:32:17 UTCMike 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...
12017-02-01 12:20:21 UTCMike 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...
12017-02-01 12:05:38 UTCMike 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...
12017-01-30 12:24:57 UTCMike 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?

12017-01-30 12:18:42 UTCMike 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...
22017-02-01 21:55:59 UTCTitoCasq Done.
12017-01-25 11:00:59 UTCDaveF Hi
Is it construction or meadow? It can't be both.
22017-01-25 11:06:32 UTCMike Baggaley no idea, all I did is correct a spelling mistake
32017-01-25 11:12:51 UTCDaveF Apologies. I clicked on the incorrect changeset.
12017-01-23 18:02:53 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Ernst, Is "Cults Primary School Access" really the name of this highway 466398072? This sounds more like a description.

22017-01-23 19:26:06 UTCErnst 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.
12017-01-23 17:59:25 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I don't think "access to local nature reserve" is a valid name for highway 464259584. This looks more like a description.

12017-01-23 17:56:31 UTCMike Baggaley Hi is this road really named "School Access Road"? This seems more like a description.

22017-01-30 16:14:51 UTCAtlas Taxis Hi Mike.
You are correct It has no real name. I have removed the name.
12017-01-22 10:18:16 UTCRichard Hi Mike,

Interested to note your retagging of the D'Arcy Dalton Way with a comment that it's "no longer classified as a long-distance path". It still appears to be signposted round here and the guidebook has just (December) been republished. Can you shed any light?

All the best
22017-01-22 12:51:56 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Richard, Unfortunately I can't remember where I got the information from (possibly LDWA), but my update predates the new guidebook by almost a year. I assume that the route has subsequently been updated and reclassified. I have removed the historic prefix.

32017-01-22 16:34:18 UTCRichard Hi Mike,
That's great - thank you. Went for a walk today and it is still (happily) very much in evidence on the ground, albeit a bit muddy!
All the best
12017-01-17 16:48:51 UTCMike 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...
22017-01-17 22:34:47 UTCrobbob700 Thanks Mike
Yes I meant to show this as a shorter length of road. I've now corrected it.
12017-01-15 16:23:23 UTCndm Not a description - it is a prominent name in addition to logos/branding. I have added a note that the name needs to be (re)surveyed. Could you please add such notes in the future; unless you've directly surveyed it.
22017-01-15 23:59:59 UTCMike Baggaley In hindsight, it would have been better if I had moved Post Office to the brand tag instead of just removing it. I will go back and set the brand tag.
I believe the correct name should be <something> Post Office, not just Post Office on its own
32017-01-16 00:22:06 UTCndm I was finishing up an edit on this road -- and found a couple of relevant photos. Have updated the name.
12017-01-14 18:45:11 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Andy, U10633 does not seem like a valid name for way 107127842. Were you intending it to be the ref?

22017-01-14 18:47:44 UTCMike Baggaley I also notice ways 138609531, 144783725 and 144783731 have similar errors (U4047 and U3071).

32017-01-14 23:31:14 UTCandyfrizzle 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

42017-01-14 23:43:10 UTCMike 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....
52017-01-14 23:58:11 UTCandyfrizzle 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.
62017-01-15 00:23:59 UTCandyfrizzle Mike,
I now understand how to input the ref field.
I will amend the other records.
Thanks for the input and assistance.
12017-01-14 18:56:05 UTCMike 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?

12017-01-13 16:29:56 UTCMike 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?

12017-01-11 13:15:47 UTCDerby45 Hi Mike, this is only an advised route from Cycle Derby. It's not a signed route or part of any network.

03 is the number of the leaflet printed locally.

This shows on the cycle map as 03.
22017-01-11 13:26:24 UTCMike Baggaley OK, probably would be better as loc_ref=3. I'll change it to that. Cheers,
12017-01-10 17:32:39 UTCMike 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?

22017-01-10 19:10:37 UTCGyrwa 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.
32017-01-10 19:41:55 UTCMike 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...
12017-01-05 16:54:32 UTCMike 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?

12016-12-27 00:01:23 UTCMike 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?

22016-12-28 22:39:53 UTCCptliam010 I don't see a problem I have just added in a few pathements
32016-12-29 00:26:40 UTCMike Baggaley I can only assume you have replied without actually looking at way 125240282, which you can view at . 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...
42016-12-29 00:32:45 UTCSomeoneElse Hello,
The path 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 ...
52016-12-31 22:02:50 UTCCptliam010 i lloked and i see the problem i dont play pokemon go and i was adding this as a school project
62017-01-02 00:22:05 UTCSomeoneElse @Cptliam010 Thanks. Does really exist as it is currently drawn? It seems unlikely...
72017-01-02 00:49:48 UTCCptliam010 In fact it does it is a rough sketch of the paths the kids can run along and play about on
12016-12-27 00:32:07 UTCMike 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?

22016-12-27 01:27:41 UTCeastender 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...
12016-12-07 20:56:06 UTCndm Not sure what "foot access" has to do with this change. It just seems to lose information about switching lanes. Bing imagery is out of date -- and I thought it was mapped fairly well. Did you survey this?
22016-12-07 23:08:37 UTCMike Baggaley Apologies if I have misinterpreted this junction. I was adding sidewalk=none to clarify why the road had no foot access. In looking at the junction, I did not think there was any kerb between the two directions of traffic, so considered that the correct mapping was to only have a single highway show...
12016-12-02 14:59:22 UTCMike 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.

22016-12-02 16:45:39 UTCPete 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.
32016-12-02 16:57:38 UTCMike 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).

12016-11-30 18:50:27 UTCtrigpoint 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
22016-11-30 19:36:49 UTCSiHollett 1) source -

2) 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 it

3) there's masses of unsigned roads ...
32016-11-30 19:49:44 UTCSomeoneElse Ahem. I'd suggest that your paragraph (2) could probably benefit from a bit of wider discussion - I'd suggest that talk-gb list for that - it's where youll probably find the widest audience of GB mappers.
Re (3) it's definitely worth following custo...
42016-12-01 07:39:20 UTCRichard 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...
52016-12-01 09:03:35 UTCSiHollett "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...
62016-12-01 09:55:23 UTCSomeoneElse @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...
72016-12-01 13:12:11 UTCSiHollett "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...
82016-12-01 13:19:54 UTCSomeoneElse > you refuse to handle it personally,
No - go back and read it again.
92016-12-01 13:53:30 UTCSiHollett "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 ...
102016-12-01 14:24:53 UTCSomeoneElse 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...
112016-12-01 14:58:29 UTCSiHollett "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 ...
122016-12-02 14:54:33 UTCMike 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?

132016-12-02 15:20:50 UTCSomeoneElse @Mike Baggaley - I think you mean (I keep doing that too!)
142016-12-02 15:59:16 UTCSiHollett 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...
152016-12-02 16:32:06 UTCMike 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...
162016-12-02 16:37:59 UTCSiHollett OK, thanks Mike, that makes sense
172017-05-11 13:30:25 UTCEdLoach I just stumbled across UX6 and wondered why ref has been used in place of official_ref - but see there has been discussion already. It looks like we're being left to correct them as we find them?
12016-11-05 13:09:09 UTCMike 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.

22016-11-05 14:12:00 UTCSomeoneElse For info, here's a public example that shows it:!51.8143!-2.7444
12016-11-05 12:42:03 UTCMike 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...
12016-11-05 00:28:05 UTCtrigpoint Hi, I pass every day and cannot recall any signs legally prohibiting HGVs. What is the source of this, remember access tags are meant to indicate the legallity, if you wish to tag suitability then lanes=1 or width = 2m are the way to go.
22016-11-05 08:38:25 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I split this way from way 39207901 and did not define any of the tags whilst adding the Shropshire Way relation to parts of it. You may wish to look at the adjoining parts of Isombridge Lane and remove the hgv tag from those as well. I am not local so don't know the restrictions on it.

32016-11-05 09:38:30 UTCtrigpoint Sorry, should have dug a bit deeper. I can see the tag has been on the original way since forever. I will investigate.

Cheers Phil
12016-10-26 11:42:10 UTCMike Baggaley *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit
12016-10-24 10:21:55 UTCMike 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.

22016-10-24 12:47:14 UTCtms13 Fixed (both - I saw no evidence of one-way working)
12016-10-20 11:09:17 UTCMike 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...
22016-10-22 10:32:54 UTCtrigpoint 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...
32016-12-21 00:08:36 UTCtrigpoint Fixed in
12016-10-20 10:39:39 UTCMike 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.

12016-09-15 13:11:39 UTCMike 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?

Mike B.
22016-09-15 18:43:28 UTCtms13 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.
12016-09-05 09:37:57 UTCMike 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 ...
12016-09-04 16:17:23 UTCMike 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?

12016-08-31 22:22:34 UTCGinaroZ Hi, noticed you removed the ref=A199 from the roundabout - what's the reason for doing that? And are you planning on doing it for all the other roundabouts as well?
22016-08-31 23:20:11 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, the main change was to separate roads so that each road joins at a separate node, which I am aiming to do on a lot of roundabouts. Roundabouts are junctions between different roads and are not strictly part of any of the adjoining roads, and hence shouldn't have the ref of an adjoining road (the...
12016-08-26 21:35:41 UTCndm Are you sure this is correct? I thought that the whole point was that cyclists don't need to enter the roundabout -- check it out on Bing. A "Fixing roundabouts" changeset comment would've been really useful too. Cheers.
22016-08-26 23:27:58 UTCMike Baggaley I did use Bing to fix the roundabout, to separate the cycleway and road points where they meet the roundabout. The previous entry already touched the roundabout at the same point as the road. From Bing I would say you could draw that part of the roundabout several ways. The original violates the jun...
32016-08-27 10:24:52 UTCndm Well, it's being redeveloped so will need resurveying soon. P.S. I use JOSM, so it remembers a last set of changeset comments -- but a simple text file and copy/paste would do the same for other editors -- a pain the first time, but not for subsequent edits.
12016-08-26 21:38:54 UTCndm Are you sure this is correct? Buses on separated bus lane can no longer enter the roundabout. A changeset comment would be good too. Thanks.
22016-08-26 23:12:29 UTCMike Baggaley Hopefully now improved - I was confused as the bus routes were showing as down the right hand lane, not the left. I have also moved them to the left lane. Regards,
12016-08-25 10:34:22 UTCMike 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.

22016-08-25 11:10:10 UTCTroon It's correct — lots of road alterations going on
12016-08-22 23:38:13 UTCMike 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.

12016-08-22 18:03:14 UTCchillly If the footway (or track or whatever) is a public right of way I suggest you add designation=public_footpath or designation=public_bridleway. It allows you to split the legal designation from the physical highway, for example a track (highway=track) could be a public footpath or a bridleway
22016-08-22 18:47:29 UTCMike Baggaley Not sure I understand why you have made this comment on my change - I am fully aware of the use of designation, but my change was just removing an incorrect name from the path (it had the name of a route in it). I have no idea of the legal or physical details of the path as I am not local to it.
32016-08-22 18:50:59 UTCchillly A changeset comment would have helped others understand what your change is about.
12016-08-21 09:11:10 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, is 105 really the name of the peak at node 4355538354, or did you intend this to be an elevation?

22016-08-21 09:45:31 UTCHbunnet Thanks, corrected now.
12016-08-17 10:35:32 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, is way 334783369 really one-way? If so, oneway=1 is a discouraged value - oneway=yes is the preferred value.

12016-08-14 16:25:55 UTCMike 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.

12016-08-09 06:58:22 UTCMike 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,
22016-08-09 08:29:34 UTCtomca12 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 ...
32016-08-09 09:17:58 UTCSomeoneElse @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.!53.0918!-1.6495 and . If you think that it'd be a useful a...
42016-08-09 13:42:38 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, to clarify, if you look at 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...
52016-08-13 18:05:34 UTCtomca12 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. :)
62016-08-13 18:09:39 UTCMike Baggaley Yes, I have removed the names of routes from the highways.
12016-08-08 14:01:49 UTCtrigpoint Hi Mike
Something seems to have gone a bit, you seem to have removed the.ways from this through route relation.
What.were you trying to achieve or what did you see wrong here?
Cheers Phil
22016-08-08 16:57:01 UTCMike Baggaley Hi Phil, my understanding of the through_route relation is that it should have two ways and one common node to indicate the normal way ahead. This relation had more that two ways connected to it and was causing warnings to be generated in a process I use based on the OSM data. I was going to try to ...
32016-08-08 20:36:27 UTCtrigpoint Thank you for your reply Mike.
The number of ways had increased, caused by adding speed limits.
Had not realised the proposal had been rejected, although it is important and should be revived at some point. I am quite surprised by the lack of understanding in some of the comments, these junctions ...
12016-07-31 11:18:29 UTCMike 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,
12016-07-28 14:52:26 UTCMike 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?
12016-07-21 12:52:25 UTCMike 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.

12016-05-26 10:08:43 UTCMike 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?
12016-05-12 08:59:45 UTCMike 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...
22016-05-12 11:27:43 UTCSomeoneElse "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!
12016-05-09 19:55:34 UTCMike 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.
22016-05-10 05:52:32 UTCBCNorwich 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...
12016-05-08 22:42:03 UTCMike Baggaley Is Rayleigh Road no longer the A1015? Please either remove ref=A1015 or reinstate highway=primary. Thanks.
22016-05-10 00:00:23 UTCh2g2bob 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
32016-05-10 11:50:37 UTCtrigpoint Hi h2g2bob
I 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...
42016-05-10 23:44:27 UTCh2g2bob 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 ...
12016-04-25 21:23:26 UTCndm Not clear how deleting the names from the driveway improves OpenStreetmap -- maybe replacing the & with a ; might have been better. Or adding a note for local mappers.

Would be so much easier to tell what the changeset is meant to do if there was a comment.
22016-04-25 22:35:11 UTCMike Baggaley Apologies. These names are not the names of highways, they are the names of buildings.hence the deletion from the highway. There are others nearby that I moved the name to addr:housename, but must have omitted this one.
12016-04-06 16:22:35 UTCMike 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.

12016-03-23 11:32:20 UTCGinaroZ Why did you change this from a path to a footway?
22016-03-23 11:39:09 UTCMike Baggaley because it has footway=sidewalk. The help on Tag:footway=sidewalk says, "Use footway=sidewalk along with highway=footway to tag sidewalks". Is there some reason you think it should not be a footpath?
12016-03-22 00:02:49 UTCMike 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.

22016-03-22 09:22:37 UTCAnkEric 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...
32016-03-22 11:31:59 UTCSomeoneElse @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.
42016-03-22 16:37:55 UTCAnkEric 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...
12016-03-20 12:18:19 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, The Ridgeway is the name of a route, and should not be added as the name of a highway (path).

12016-03-09 21:46:28 UTCSomeoneElse Any reason why you've changed the Sabrina Way from route=foot;horse to route=horse?
All of the bits that I've mapped it's been perfectly possible to follow on foot!
22016-03-09 22:23:13 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, the Sabrina way is specifically a long distance bridleway developed for the British Horse Society, according to and Whilst I would expect it to be walkable (and mtb cycleable), it is not primarily a walking route, hence my reason for changing it.
32016-03-09 22:35:44 UTCSomeoneElse It follows bridleways, sure - but the signage is such that you'd never follow it on a horse! In what way did it look like "not a walking route" to you?
42016-03-09 22:46:24 UTCMike Baggaley Did you read my previous note?
52016-03-09 22:48:02 UTCSomeoneElse Yes - although personally I tend to rely on surveys rather than websites.
62016-03-09 23:00:24 UTCMike Baggaley Which is excellent for mapping the actual route. However, no amount of survey will tell you what the route is intended for.
72016-03-09 23:24:50 UTCMike Baggaley To compare with cycle routes, pretty much all of which can be walked, we do not put route=foot;cycle, so to me it seems logical to handle this in the same way.
12016-02-23 17:28:44 UTCMike 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?
12016-02-23 16:22:19 UTCMike Baggaley Is London Road still the A269, or has this section been declassified now the A2690 is open?
22016-02-23 17:16:28 UTCDr-Mx *** SPAM *** not displayed - visit
12016-02-19 14:51:53 UTCMike 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.

12016-02-18 17:49:53 UTCMike 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?
12016-02-01 20:18:11 UTCMike 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.
12016-01-31 16:53:53 UTCMike Baggaley Is there some reason why 220735319 is tagged as highway=no with no other tags?
12016-01-22 21:50:21 UTCYorvik Prestigitator Why have you changed the name? This section of road is called De Grey Terrace according to the signs and the addresses of the houses on it
22016-01-23 00:57:22 UTCMike Baggaley As I understand it, this part of the road is still Avenue Road, with a few houses forming De Grey Terrace, so I have moved what seemed to me to be the less important name to the alt_name field so that the name Avenue Road is contiguous. It does not seem correct to me to have a road name of De Grey T...
12016-01-22 21:44:10 UTCYorvik Prestigitator The street sign says "Tang Hall Lane 124-138" which is what is down this street.

Also "addr:housenumber" should not be used for ways according to the wiki
22016-01-23 00:47:18 UTCMike Baggaley One needs to use some common sense when reading street signs. The sign saying Tang Hall Lane 124-138 indicates that the street name is Tang Hall Lane with just house numbers 124-138 on this section of the road. If The street name were Tang Hall Lane 124-138, then this would mean that house number 12...
12016-01-22 21:40:21 UTCYorvik Prestigitator The houses on the east side of this street are Railway View and the houses on the west side of this street are Northfield Terrace, this is clearly indicated by local street signs.
Why have you changed the street name from "Northfield Terrace / Railway View" to "Northfield Terrace&quo...
22016-01-23 00:40:06 UTCMike Baggaley The street name is not Northfield Terrace / Railway View, it has two names. I have put one in the name field and the other in the alt_name field, which I believe is the correct way to handle this situation.
12016-01-22 10:23:46 UTCMike 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.

12016-01-19 16:36:19 UTCMike 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.


22016-01-19 17:51:53 UTCtrigpoint 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.
12016-01-17 16:50:47 UTCMike 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?

22016-01-17 18:45:37 UTCRobert 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 ...
32016-01-17 18:46:44 UTCRobert Whittaker The way in question is
42016-01-18 10:54:04 UTCMike Baggaley I found a picture at - it looks to me like the stopboards part at least should be in the description field as I assume this describes the wooden planks.
12016-01-17 23:55:18 UTCMike 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
22016-01-19 15:23:24 UTCabel801 Hi Mike, I really don't known what is the real name, because I only use satellite imagery.

32016-01-19 16:30:15 UTCSomeoneElse 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?
42016-01-25 16:02:59 UTCabel801 > Hi SomeoneElse, the residential road was added by the [previous mapper]( and my edit was only to fix the connection. The mapper has [many local edits]( and I assume...
52016-01-25 17:54:40 UTCSomeoneElse 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?
62016-02-25 21:40:29 UTCsamely Message has been sent it to Lincoln Edge. If he answer to me, I'll share it.
72016-03-06 15:27:28 UTCLincoln Edge It's open now, and it is called Nocton Park Road.
82016-03-21 14:29:28 UTCsamely Thank you Lincoln Edge!
12016-01-06 18:21:23 UTCMike 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...
22016-01-06 18:58:24 UTCHeverman 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...
12015-10-05 14:10:16 UTCMike 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.
22015-10-14 10:09:27 UTCSailor 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...
12015-08-28 17:31:23 UTCMike 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.

12015-08-28 08:46:23 UTCMike 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).

12015-08-10 22:46:32 UTCMike 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.
22015-08-11 11:43:03 UTCMaddog 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...
32015-08-11 12:42:03 UTCSomeoneElse Personally, I'd use for that...
42015-08-11 13:20:14 UTCMike 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...
12015-03-09 13:23:47 UTCMike Baggaley Are you sure the name of the water at way 96215794 is Fish Pond? This seems more like a description.
12015-03-05 02:05:43 UTCrobert Did you mean to switch the name= on Passmore Edwards Court to an addr:housename=? This has broken a match:
22015-03-06 00:17:25 UTCMike Baggaley oops, I think it should be OK now
12015-02-18 17:03:08 UTCMike 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.

22015-02-18 17:17:06 UTCOffTheChart 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 :)
32015-02-18 18:18:43 UTCMike 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...
42015-02-18 22:17:48 UTCOffTheChart Fine, change it if you like :)
12015-01-13 14:59:38 UTCMike 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.

12015-01-12 10:54:42 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, this road should not be secondary. Please see 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...
22015-01-12 20:00:25 UTCPmaiIkeey

Accurately 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 ...
32015-01-12 22:59:52 UTCMike 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 ...
Mike Baggaley has contributed to 294 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 654 comment(s)