| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26113598 by Mike Baggaley @ 2014-10-16 09:40 | 1 | 2024-05-02 17:52 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Hi Mike I was considering changing Crinkle Crags to be a ridge line (natural=ridge) as I think that's a reasonable description of it. Thought I'd check in with you and see if you had an opinion before doing so.Cheers, Tom |
| 2 | 2024-05-03 07:48 | Mike Baggaley | That sounds reasonable to me Tom | |
| 3 | 2024-05-05 22:08 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Thanks Mike https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150900721 | |
| 124219756 by James Hulse @ 2022-07-29 08:55 | 1 | 2022-08-03 16:57 | Mike Baggaley | Not sure of your logic here. You CAN walk in a bus lane unless there is a no pedestrians sign. |
| 116827064 by Mike Baggaley @ 2022-01-31 14:51 | 1 | 2022-02-04 15:13 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | There's a fingerpost at either end of this route which say "low tide route", is that not enough to get it named? |
| 2 | 2022-02-04 17:36 | Mike Baggaley | No, the fingerpost is containing information about the (Fife Coastal Path) route, not the name of the path. The path is tagged as tidal, and as an alternative section of the route. | |
| 116114257 by The Jogfather @ 2022-01-13 16:32 | 1 | 2022-01-26 09:09 | Mike Baggaley | Hi following this changeset the public footpath now appears to lead just to the farmhouse from the east and to a private track from the west. Can you please review where the public footpath actually goes?Thanks,Mike |
| 112849316 by mackie34 @ 2021-10-22 17:35 | 1 | 2022-01-10 21:26 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, don't know whether anyone has mentioned previously but house numbers should go in the addr:housenumber field, not the name field. Can you please review?Cheers,Mike |
| 115105392 by TedDanger @ 2021-12-18 18:27 | 1 | 2021-12-23 09:38 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify why this public footpath has no access?Thanks,Mike |
| 115123081 by kevjs1982 @ 2021-12-19 11:51 | 1 | 2021-12-23 08:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have removed pedestrian access to various roads. Is that what was intended? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 113292521 by mountainmonkey @ 2021-11-02 16:17 | 1 | 2021-12-05 09:20 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I believe that the Sutherland Trail is an unmarked route that just exists in a guide book and as such do not believe it should be in Open Street Map. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-12-06 21:48 | mountainmonkey ♦18 | Hi, I moved the name from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48076622/history to a new route relation because that's a better way to tag a route name, I don't know anything about the Sutherland Trail itself, didn't see any signs when I was in the area and have no objection to you delet... | |
| 3 | 2021-12-07 11:17 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks, I have examined the originator of the way. He/she only made two edits back in 2015, so I have deleted the relation. | |
| 111067017 by kaptinkenny14 @ 2021-09-11 15:26 | 1 | 2021-12-06 16:04 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 775601796 has been tagged as a river, but it seems unlikely to be one to me. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2022-01-26 04:49 | DaveF ♦1,563 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/775601796/historyPlease revert. | |
| 114227748 by Breaking Cycles CIC @ 2021-11-25 15:34 | 1 | 2021-12-05 09:08 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. I hope you are enjoying mapping, but please do not make up names such as #RidePendle in the name tag. Only real names should be tagged. If these ways form part of a cycling route, please see route relations for how they should be tagged.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2022-01-03 01:52 | DaveF ♦1,563 | HiConcur with the above comment. Could you fix it please, Breaking Cycles CIC. | |
| 3 | 2022-01-19 15:51 | Casey_boy ♦82 | "#RidePendle" removed from bridleways in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116347862 and116348143. Others were removed during mapping, these were from an overpass search. | |
| 114231556 by AllotmentCyclist @ 2021-11-25 17:03 | 1 | 2021-12-05 08:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Welcome to Open Street Map, I hope you are enjoying mapping. Please note that names should only be added where an object has a real name. Please do not use descriptions of the use of features as names.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-12-05 17:31 | AllotmentCyclist ♦14 | Thanks for welcome and the advice. The name seems to have been removed now so I assume you corrected it. Thankyou.Chris | |
| 113196809 by TomJeffs @ 2021-10-31 14:59 | 1 | 2021-12-05 08:37 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if Newport Street is no longer the B6204 please remove the ref, if it is still the B6204, please revert to secondary. It cannot be a B road and tertiary.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-12-05 21:17 | TomJeffs ♦26 | Thanks for the alert, I didn't see that - I changed it because it's now a much less significant road in the transport network (for driving). I've changed it back. | |
| 114280472 by UKChris @ 2021-11-26 22:52 | 1 | 2021-12-05 08:29 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this change Yallands Hill has been tagged as highway=secondary and ref=A3259. One of these must be wrong. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-12-05 11:24 | UKChris ♦42 | Thanks Mike, good catch, the A3259 is now assigned to the new relief road (114578529). | |
| 113839930 by tzruns @ 2021-11-16 08:25 | 1 | 2021-11-18 00:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, at the end of Figsbury Road this change has blocked pedestrian access to the footpath which the Monarch's Way route runs along. Can you please review the access and/or alignment?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-11-18 07:28 | tzruns ♦2 | Apologies, I've amended the stretch of service road between beyond the farm gate to reflect it is a public footpath. All good now? | |
| 3 | 2021-11-18 13:37 | Mike Baggaley | Looks good to me. Cheers | |
| 111263392 by brianboru @ 2021-09-15 21:43 | 1 | 2021-11-18 00:31 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think it would be better if the parts of the roundabout were not tagged as a roundabout until the roundabout is complete.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-11-18 20:28 | brianboru ♦158 | Hi Mike - my edit didn't touch that tag - better to take it up with the actual editor. I'm actually indifferent about the issueRegardsBrian | |
| 113621959 by JammyDodge @ 2021-11-10 18:47 | 1 | 2021-11-17 23:45 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this road has been downgraded, please remove the A ref and add its new B ref. If it is still the A3026, please revert back to primary.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2024-02-19 13:13 | plonkers ♦25 | I can't find any evidence that the A3026 has been re-routed so I've reverted Windmill Drive back to tertiary and Tidworth Road back to primary.Then again, I haven't done a ground survey so I'll open a note requesting one. | |
| 112701203 by MacLondon @ 2021-10-19 14:31 | 1 | 2021-11-16 00:29 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you seem to have just changed one segment of the roundabout to circular, rather than the whole loop. Can you please review?Cheers,Mike |
| 61942706 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-08-24 07:10 | 1 | 2021-11-12 19:07 | SK53 ♦864 | Hmm, it would have been better to check with me. The footpath is closed ("gating order") not open. |
| 2 | 2021-11-13 18:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hmm, perhaps you shouldn't have put foot=yes then. My change had no effect on the resultant access. | |
| 113176702 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-10-30 23:18 | 1 | 2021-10-31 12:42 | JassKurn ♦153 | Hi, you've made a significant change to access but have not provided a source. Just want to confirm you meant the changes you made. |
| 2 | 2021-10-31 13:09 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, yes, the road has a footway/cycleway alongside so by definition must allow pedestrians and cyclists. No entry signs should not map to access=no, they should map to vehicle=no (or motor_vehicle=no if bicycles are allowed). | |
| 3 | 2021-10-31 14:18 | JassKurn ♦153 | Not sure sure of what you mean "by definition", what definition are you referring to? Is this something in the OSM wiki, or mailing lists?Last time I was there the "cycle track" and adjacent roads are separate ways. Has there been a change to highways layout? Or has ther... | |
| 4 | 2021-11-02 13:06 | JassKurn ♦153 | Hi, I've assumed the edit was made with with presumption that the shared route cycleway had not been mapped as a separate way. The "shared route" cycle track has been mapped in OSM as seperate way. Below is a link to an image I captured in August 2021https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZU... | |
| 5 | 2021-11-02 14:33 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, access=no is incorrect. As previously stated, a no entry sign does not mean access=no, it means vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no if cycling is allowed. It is perfectly legal to walk in the road unless there is a no pedestrians sign (your picture only shows a no entry sign). Cycleways are not manda... | |
| 6 | 2021-11-02 16:36 | JassKurn ♦153 | The carriageway has a prohibition limiting access to only buses. Any pedal cycle moving past the signs (either end of road) on the carriageway would be committing an offence. Correctly stating that cycle tracks are not "mandatory", does not change the prohibition affecting the carriageway... | |
| 7 | 2021-11-02 16:38 | JassKurn ♦153 | I made a mistake in previous comment. I should have stated I would have no issue with the tag being changed to vehicle=noBut now thinking about it that would allow horse access, which I assume would be prohibited | |
| 8 | 2021-11-02 16:47 | Mike Baggaley | Horses are not prohibited by a no entry sign unless they are pulling a carriage or cart, in which case they are vehicles. | |
| 107705243 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-07-09 12:50 | 1 | 2021-07-12 13:38 | dzidek23 ♦59 | I think your amendments to the Boongate street are factually correct. However, I wouldn't like to see walkers choosing Boongate over designated footpaths to either side of this street. Boongate bridge is no place for pedestrians nor cyclists (even if there is no sign preventing them to use it).... |
| 2 | 2021-07-12 13:51 | Mike Baggaley | Walkers will decide for themselves whether to walk along the adjacent paths. For those who build maps without sidewalks there will be no available route if foot=no is specified. Any walking router should be able to choose a footpath in preference to a road. I agree that it would be helpful if there ... | |
| 107427945 by Lightswitchr @ 2021-07-05 09:04 | 1 | 2021-07-11 18:45 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is there some reason why half the roundabout is now tagged as was:roundabout? Please either remove the roundabout tag from the whole roundabout or revert.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-07-11 18:47 | Lightswitchr ♦1 | I must have missed that tag and didn't remove it. The roundabout is definitely there I drove around it earlier!Thanks for the headsup. | |
| 105493888 by Team Mile @ 2021-05-28 13:03 | 1 | 2021-07-11 17:30 | Mike Baggaley | This is tagged as A57 and secondary - one of these must be incorrect. It is either primary/trunk or not the A57. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 107663455 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-07-08 22:25 | 1 | 2021-07-08 23:18 | Bexhill-OSM ♦94 | Hi, correct me if I am wrong, but I assumed that by adding the designated foot and cycle path that goes along south of this road, routing for foot traffic could be removed from the road itself? Thanks,Alex |
| 2 | 2021-07-09 06:42 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Alex, foot=no should only be specified if there is a sign indicating no pedestrians. It is perfectly legal to walk in the road in the UK. Renderers may also build maps that do not include sidewalks.Cheers,Mike | |
| 3 | 2021-07-10 13:52 | Bexhill-OSM ♦94 | Thanks for the clarification Mike, much appreciated :) | |
| 102217110 by tom81237 @ 2021-04-02 21:36 | 1 | 2021-07-08 16:56 | Mike Baggaley | The roads in the centre of Newcastle are clearly not footpaths. These are pedestrianised roads with vehicular access in the evenings, plus loading and disabled vehicle access. I am unsure why you have changed them from pedestrian to footway - your changeset note gives no clue.Regards,Mike |
| 106056715 by IrishCornelius @ 2021-06-08 20:47 | 1 | 2021-07-07 22:18 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see that the Hertfordshire Chain Walk appears to run along East End Green (way 33924404), which is marked as private. If you are local can you please review its access and walking route?Cheers,Mike |
| 107371972 by BlackBerryUser @ 2021-07-03 23:40 | 1 | 2021-07-07 12:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see that in this change and others you have changed the access from private to permit at this RAF base. I believe permit should only be used if a member of the general public can apply for a permit. If the permits are restricted, then private is the correct value. Can you please review?Che... |
| 107037233 by byekitty @ 2021-06-27 13:40 | 1 | 2021-07-07 08:08 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is the restriction for all traffic or just motor vehicles? Should this be motor_vehicle=permit? If there is a barrier, I also suggest mapping it.Cheers,Mike |
| 107513881 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-07-06 17:54 | 1 | 2021-07-06 19:54 | ndm ♦889 | Probably needs reverting - rest of the "round road" is a roundabout. |
| 2 | 2021-07-06 23:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hadn't realised I'd only changed half the roundabout. Have now changed the rest of it to circular. | |
| 105739779 by Jon Watt @ 2021-06-02 20:21 | 1 | 2021-07-05 17:21 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, your changeset says no access on these routes, but way 912295820 has bicycle=yes, which overrides access=no. The combination allows cycling but not pedestrians which is not very likely. Please review.Thanks,Mike |
| 106181616 by MRQ7 @ 2021-06-11 00:00 | 1 | 2021-07-05 13:27 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. Please note that foot=no means it is illegal to walk along a highway. In the UK this is only true where there is a no pedestrians sign or the road is a motorway (even if it may not be safe to do so). Please do not add foot=no to roads just because they do not have a s... |
| 2 | 2021-07-08 12:29 | MRQ7 ♦1 | Hi Mike, Thanks for the clarification on this - My lack of understanding of the difference between 'foot' and 'footpath' :)Matt | |
| 105512644 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-05-28 21:17 | 1 | 2021-06-03 08:42 | saintam1 ♦158 | Hello, I notice you removed foot=use_sidepath tags I'd recently added. I'm not precious about them but I thought it was the correct tagging. My reading of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot%3Duse_sidepath is that since the pavements are drawn separately here, pedestrians should b... |
| 2 | 2021-06-03 09:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, my understanding is that use_sidepath is intended for use in countries where it is a legal requirement to use the sidepath where one exists. That is not the case in the UK where it is legal to walk along any roadway or cycleway unless specifically prohibited (it may not be safe to do so, but the... | |
| 3 | 2021-06-03 09:34 | saintam1 ♦158 | I would've thought it was forbidden to walk on the road itself where there's a pavement, but if you say so. Cheers. | |
| 105514941 by Mikey Co @ 2021-05-28 23:13 | 1 | 2021-06-02 16:39 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, a short section is tagged as running along way 715817267 which has access=private. Should this have foot=yes, foot=permissive or foot=designated added?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-06-02 18:53 | Mikey Co ♦27 | Apologies, but I don't know the service road in question, I was just adjusting the Relations which use it (as I intend at some point to do one of the designated Hikes).It was venredd who originally created this, and priymose who then added the access=private, so maybe of them would know?\... | |
| 96586391 by Krad @ 2020-12-29 09:06 | 1 | 2021-05-30 06:47 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have added a path to Churchbridge Glamping with foot=permit and name=public right of way (way 889482573). The name has since been removed and designation=public_footpath has replaced it, however, a public footpath should not need a permit. Can you please clarify the status of ... |
| 104910902 by Matthew Newton @ 2021-05-18 19:26 | 1 | 2021-05-20 19:35 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Matthew, in this change you have set access=private to a number of ways, which agrees with your comment. However, some of them also have tags like foot=permissive or bicycle=permissive, which overrides the access=private tag for those transport modes (e.g. way 2680475) and means the general publi... |
| 2 | 2021-05-21 11:14 | Matthew Newton ♦2 | Hi Mike,That was intentional. The general public do walk/cycle across campus, and the university makes no attempt to stop them. There are signs at at least some entrances to the effect of "permissive access, no public right of way, access may be limited at any time" (I'd need to go ... | |
| 3 | 2021-05-21 11:33 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Matthew, thanks for the reply. My reason for noticing this was that some footways have access=private and foot=permissive which leads to confusion as to whether private or permissive was intended. I suggest removing access=private from the footways, as footways by definition do not allow any othe... | |
| 4 | 2021-05-21 13:01 | Matthew Newton ♦2 | Hi Mike,Sure, that makes good sense. I thought I only edited roads, but I might have caught a few footways up by mistake. There's a lot of existing random differences that need tidying.As time permits I plan to go across the site in more careful detail. Maybe footways should just be "a... | |
| 5 | 2021-05-21 13:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Matthew,I think it is better to use foot=permissive than access=permissive on highway=footway, as access=permissive would imply that cycles and cars can use the footway permissively.Cheers,Mike | |
| 6 | 2021-05-21 22:13 | Matthew Newton ♦2 | Hi Mike,Either tagging works for me (highway="footway" restricts it from cars or cycles in my view, too), so quite happy to go with your suggestion.However, thinking about it a vast number of the campus paths are cycled along, too. Might need some careful consideration on a case-by... | |
| 104893326 by NavigatorPilot @ 2021-05-18 13:00 | 1 | 2021-05-20 18:51 | Mike Baggaley | This way already had the two names in it. Please see the alt_name, name:left and name:right fields. Each field should only contain one name. Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-05-20 19:05 | NavigatorPilot ♦2 | Yes, and according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Left_and_right_names the name= tag can contain both street names separated by a hyphen (I also saw a help page which seems to suggest a dash, which is what I used here).The street signs on each side of the street here have different... | |
| 3 | 2021-05-20 19:07 | NavigatorPilot ♦2 | A couple of typos in my comment:*s/dash/slash/*s/allowed on/allowed one/ | |
| 4 | 2021-05-21 08:01 | Mike Baggaley | Two names are put in the name field in Wales where there are both names on a single sign, but I don't think it is appropriate here (despite the suggestion in the wiki). This is a form of 'making up a name' and tagging for the renderer. When navigating to this street the adjacent ways ... | |
| 5 | 2021-05-21 19:53 | SK53 ♦864 | Also worth noting that Andy Townsend's UK specific map handles these cases directly in code (i.e., generates a name containing both parts), see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=19&lat=51.53159&lon=-0.180258. This really shows that the renderer on the main OSM site is ... | |
| 104772268 by Falsernet @ 2021-05-16 14:46 | 1 | 2021-05-20 18:29 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this change a number of ways have been given ref B5210, but the highway has not been set to secondary. If this really is the B5210, please set the highway to secondary, otherwise please remove the ref. There does seem to be some confusion about this road looking at its history!Cheers,Mi... |
| 104967259 by PhilBike24 @ 2021-05-19 13:58 | 1 | 2021-05-20 18:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review the refs of Lime Street, Great Charlotte Street etc that have been downgraded in this change, as they still have A road refs. Are they now part of the B5339?Cheers,Mike |
| 104370023 by beatpoet @ 2021-05-08 15:38 | 1 | 2021-05-12 16:59 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I'm not quite clear what the names AP1, AP5 etc are. They don't seem to me to be in the correct tag as the name field is expected to be populated with a proper noun. Art they some sort of reference (in which case they should be in one of the ref fields)?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-05-12 17:40 | beatpoet ♦7 | Hello, AP stands for "access point" and they can be seen at https://live-webadmin-media.s3.amazonaws.com/media/7380/airfield-map-updated-oct-2018-ver-2.pdf. I'd say do whatever you like, change the names, remove them, rename the gates instead, whatever you like! | |
| 3 | 2021-05-12 17:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, thanks for the quick response. If there are gates, I suggest that the gates are given loc_ref=AP1 etc and the names removed from the roads. | |
| 98586936 by Martin Wynne @ 2021-02-02 15:22 | 1 | 2021-05-12 17:30 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Martin, hope you don't mind a quick reminder - when editing a roundabout each road joining or leaving the roundabout should do so at a separate point. When going round this roundabout for example, you will pass the entry from Stourport Road before the A449 exit. Cheers, Mike |
| 104411281 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-05-09 20:57 | 1 | 2021-05-12 17:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I know you didn't set the access, but do you know if there is there a reason why the footways into the station have access=no? Way 845089075 and adjacent. Cheers, Mike |
| 2 | 2021-05-12 18:48 | ramthelinefeed ♦61 | Hi, I'm guess it is probably because there has been some construction work / remodelling of the station in recent years, and some of the ways through have been closed off whilst it was ongoing. They probably need their 'access' tag revised now - I'll take a look! | |
| 3 | 2021-05-12 18:53 | ramthelinefeed ♦61 | The 'pedestrian area' forecourt is free to access, I think, so I have cleared the tag on that. I don't think you can go through under the tracks to reach Wallis Road yet. | |
| 102999836 by brianboru @ 2021-04-15 14:00 | 1 | 2021-05-08 12:33 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have presumable inadvertently set a number of ways with highway="path as it was before COVID". can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-05-10 19:02 | brianboru ♦158 | No need I did this deliberately to save myself work in case the situation reverses if BCC decide to remove the popup cycle lane in the road which currently makes this shared cycle/footpath redundant and I have to reinstate itRegardsBrian | |
| 3 | 2021-05-10 19:31 | Mike Baggaley | Could you change the tagging from highway= to old_highway= or similar, as the current tagging throws up errors because of an invalid value for highway? | |
| 4 | 2021-05-10 19:43 | brianboru ♦158 | No problems. Will do | |
| 104355475 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-05-08 08:55 | 1 | 2021-05-08 21:29 | ndm ♦889 | Why have you removed the bus-only tagging https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=DZ6C024e0nUGfdPEEkLuBL&lat=51.499329982373396&lng=-2.4796254560374464&z=17&x=0.4861360520140399&y=0.6484835871922798&zoom=0 |
| 2 | 2021-05-08 21:34 | Mike Baggaley | I have not removed the bus only tagging. The sign does not prohibit pedestrians or horses, only vehicles other than buses, which are still prohibited in my tagging - see bicycle=no and motor_vehicle=no. | |
| 103854273 by Samuel May @ 2021-04-29 15:18 | 1 | 2021-05-08 08:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Samuel, welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point, it is incorrect to name the individual paths making up a long distance route with the name of the route. This name belongs in the route relation, and the individual paths should only be named if they have their own specific name. You can see... |
| 103220623 by mc85eu @ 2021-04-19 19:59 | 1 | 2021-05-08 07:55 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, hope you are having fun mapping, but please note that the names of long distance routes should not be used as the names for individual path segments. The name goes in the route relation. This can be seen at waymarkedtrails.org which uses the OSM data (it is not shown on the standard openstreetma... |
| 2 | 2021-05-08 15:29 | mc85eu ♦2 | Good afternoon, Mr Baggaley,Thanks for your kind message. I have been made aware of this by you (today) and someone called Bernard (forgot his username) about a week ago. I now know not to make similar changes to well-defined, long-distance paths, due to your and Bernard's help. Thank you. ... | |
| 98531054 by sir-lancelot @ 2021-02-01 19:31 | 1 | 2021-03-03 18:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi. In this change a number of ways have been named with what look like references. If these are the public right of way numbers, please move the values to the prow_ref field and delete the names. The name field should only be filled with a proper noun.Cheers,Mike |
| 99679430 by Jon Watt @ 2021-02-21 13:11 | 1 | 2021-03-01 07:59 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM. If this doesn't exist then it should be deleted, not marked as having no access (I picked this up because the way has bicycle=yes, indicating you can cycle it but not walk it). However, please note that the southern end is joining two other paths, so way 461951584 now goes n... |
| 2 | 2021-03-01 08:35 | Jon Watt ♦1 | Thanks Mike. I have created a new edit and deleted the path in question. | |
| 99528857 by Hiblet @ 2021-02-18 13:49 | 1 | 2021-02-26 00:23 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I do not think you should be adding temporary markers into the database. The names of objects should only be proper nouns, so Lawn is not a valid name either. If an object doesn't have a name, please don't make one up. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 97319805 by Mike Baggaley @ 2021-01-11 16:48 | 1 | 2021-01-11 18:27 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Thanks. I'll have to walk the Three Forests Way at some point in order to fill in the rather large gaps either side of Theydon Mount/Theydon Tawney. |
| 2 | 2021-01-11 19:52 | Mike Baggaley | 18km tagged, 78km to go! | |
| 96853468 by etgg @ 2021-01-03 16:04 | 1 | 2021-01-04 23:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice you have tagged way 891554114 as a public_bridleway but with no foot or horse access allowed? Can you please review it? If the access and designation are correct, please add a note explaining why access is prohibited.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-01-05 09:34 | etgg ♦14 | Hi, Thanks for letting me know, the incorrect bridleway designation tag on a path was left on from previous editors. The bridleway to the south is the correct one so I have removed the tag and reverted the path back to it's base setting. A mountain bike trail relation was overrun into this path... | |
| 91988618 by Marting77 @ 2020-10-05 13:03 | 1 | 2021-01-04 23:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change there are a few ways with name="River Access Walkway". Is this a real name for the path, or is it a description? If the former, I suggest adding a note to say this really is the name. If it is a description, please remove the name.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-01-05 09:33 | Marting77 ♦6 | Hi Mike, thanks for spotting this. I think the name existed from before my edit. I've had another check at it and now removed the "name". I'd previously adjusted the alignment to suit the situation with the redeveloped site, and to differentiate it from Charleville Mews.Thanks,... | |
| 96021370 by JayTurnr @ 2020-12-17 17:48 | 1 | 2021-01-02 08:35 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note that foot=use_sidepath is only for use where he side path is mandatory for pedestrians (i.e. there is a no pedestrians sign applying to the road).Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-01-02 13:36 | JayTurnr ♦155 | So not for when there's fences blocking pedestrians from reaching the road then? | |
| 95365751 by Tristan Scott @ 2020-12-06 13:28 | 1 | 2021-01-02 08:30 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note that foot=use_sidepath is only for use where he side path is mandatory for pedestrians (i.e. there is a no pedestrians sign applying to the road).Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-01-02 10:23 | Tristan Scott ♦8 | Interestingly, this came from StreetComplete which does not use this phrasing when asking the user whether there is a dedicated footpath. If you have the intended use of the tag correct, be aware that's not how the developers of StreetComplete thought it would be, so a lot of the tagging by tha... | |
| 95732066 by phodgkin @ 2020-12-12 18:14 | 1 | 2021-01-02 08:10 | Mike Baggaley | HI, please note that motor_vehicle=agricultural;forestry means that anyone driving an agricultural vehicle or a forestry vehicle can use the highway. It does not mean that the highway is used for agricultural or forestry purposes. If these are farmers' tracks, the correct value would be private... |
| 2 | 2021-01-02 12:58 | phodgkin ♦60 | Hi Mike,These aren't tags I have used, but I have adjusted / extended tracks when I've seen them. I've just tended to map tracks without adding access tags; especially on access land, this is a bit moot, and it's clear from Strava traces that many footpaths have de facto adjust... | |
| 94269197 by Graham_Clark @ 2020-11-17 10:49 | 1 | 2021-01-01 23:58 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change way 117563226 which had highway=footway and foot=yes has had access=no added. Did you intend to indicate that the path is no longer available? If so, please remove foot=yes. If not, please remove access=no as it leads to confusion as to its intention. A way is tagged highway=footw... |
| 96118658 by Toddington Tom @ 2020-12-19 18:42 | 1 | 2021-01-01 23:53 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change was 318732948 has been set as highway=byway. However, that value is deprecated - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbyway .Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2021-01-01 23:54 | Mike Baggaley | way 97536925 as well | |
| 92645142 by svm30 @ 2020-10-18 01:14 | 1 | 2021-01-01 23:46 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, at Wilsons Corner is there really an overall roundabout with two mini roundabouts inside it, From the imagery I would expect it to be just the two mini roundabouts with a single interconnecting road, unless the junction has been recently rebuilt. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 96138667 by jamesks @ 2020-12-20 13:08 | 1 | 2021-01-01 23:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change some ways have been tagged as highway=historic, which seems to me to be incorrect. The highway tag is used to describe a type of highway, not give its status which can be described by the lifecycle prefixes. Can you please review?Cheers,Mike |
| 95311729 by Allchin @ 2020-12-04 19:04 | 1 | 2021-01-01 22:44 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change way 651599330 has been named Denton Row(rear). Is this actually the name of the alleyway or is it really a description? If it is a description, it shouldn't be in the name field. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 93805580 by dw97 @ 2020-11-09 14:52 | 1 | 2021-01-01 18:53 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are you sure that Bristol Road between Harborne Lane and Chapel Lane has been downgraded? If so, please update the ref to a B ref. The plan at https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/11598/sonr_plan shows it as A38, though this may not be the complete detail. If it still the A38 then the hi... |
| 96557777 by JammyDodge @ 2020-12-28 20:25 | 1 | 2021-01-01 18:45 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you updated the highway types for Ludgershall Road and Windmill Drive, but have not changed the refs. Can you please review these as they do not match the highway types?Thanks,Mike |
| 96604309 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-12-29 13:20 | 1 | 2020-12-29 15:59 | ndm ♦889 | https://www.southglos.gov.uk/documents/Road-to-Nowhere-Website-Document.pdf |
| 2 | 2020-12-29 17:28 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, The document doesn't seem to describe this section of road, which in my view was arbitrarily named as a continuation of "Road to Nowhere". Although there are some road names containing brackets, in most cases they are made up descriptions and not proper names. If you believe this ... | |
| 92061798 by motogs @ 2020-10-06 17:02 | 1 | 2020-12-29 14:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review way 856053435 which has been tagged as a bollard?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-12-29 15:29 | motogs ♦27 | Thanks Mike. My slip. The way is now corrected to barrier=bollard, representing a line of bollards. (Was highway=bollard.) | |
| 92440180 by Brian de Ford @ 2020-10-13 22:07 | 1 | 2020-12-29 14:05 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change one of the alternate names for Cwm Degwel (Cwmdegwel) is also tagged as not:name. Can you please resolve the conflict?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-12-29 15:50 | Brian de Ford ♦5 | As far as I could determine, Cwmdegwel never was an alternate name for this road. I messed up by adding it as an alternate. Fixed now. | |
| 91484587 by Mappernerd @ 2020-09-25 06:10 | 1 | 2020-12-29 13:24 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, when mapping a trail, the name needs to go in a route relation, not the individual highway segments making up the trails. Highway names should only contain proper nouns that you would expect to see in the index of an A-Z.Cheers,Mike |
| 96069075 by PB215421 @ 2020-12-18 12:04 | 1 | 2020-12-29 12:36 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Welcome to OSM. Not sure whether anyone else has already mentioned, but public footpath numbers go in the prow_ref field, and are normally mapped in the format "Ashleyhay FP 3" - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref . Please do not put them in the name field, which shou... |
| 91497367 by paul a golder @ 2020-09-25 09:20 | 1 | 2020-12-29 09:39 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Paul, please do not make up names such as "Rear Access to ...". The name should only contain proper nouns. Cheers, Mike |
| 2 | 2020-12-29 10:33 | paul a golder ♦1 | Ok do I have to delete the name? And how do we convey the same information? | |
| 3 | 2020-12-29 10:38 | Mike Baggaley | I have removed the ones I spotted. You can put such information in the note or description fields. | |
| 53338304 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-10-29 10:55 | 1 | 2020-12-24 12:58 | Jez Nicholson ♦70 | A long time ago, I know, but just been reading https://memoirsofametrogirl.com/2018/12/29/sloane-square-tube-station-river-westbourne-kilburn-history/ is this actually a culvert and not an aquaduct? |
| 2 | 2020-12-24 13:15 | Mike Baggaley | Looks like bridge=aqueduct would be more appropriate - despite it being in a pipe, the pipe is above ground, so can't be said to be a culvert. | |
| 53425808 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-11-01 14:29 | 1 | 2020-10-27 14:44 | IpswichMapper ♦24 | Hello. What is your reasoning to change the "Stour and Orwell Walk" from a walking route to a hiking route? |
| 2 | 2020-10-27 15:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hello, if a route is primarily paved or short so that one would expect to be able to walk it in ordinary shoes then I would use walking, it it is mostly unpaved and you would expect to use walking shoes or boots then I would use hiking. | |
| 3 | 2020-10-29 00:32 | IpswichMapper ♦24 | Hello,From reading the wiki a bit more, it seems you a right. This is a very long route, so it probably not a regular "walking" route. Thanks for responding. | |
| 47605105 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-04-09 22:00 | 1 | 2020-10-25 15:50 | Pink Duck ♦151 | It seems you erroneously removed the default access=no from the bus/cycle-only section of road 3 years back linking Clover Hill Road with Earlham Green Lane. Or was there a reason for doing this? |
| 2 | 2020-10-25 16:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, access=no is incorrect as it prohibits pedestrian traffic. The way has motor_vehicle=no which prohibits motor vehicles other than those specified and is the correct prohibition. | |
| 3 | 2020-10-25 17:01 | Pink Duck ♦151 | So are you saying the legal sign bus and cycle blue instruction type means pedestrians are permitted? That seems risky considering it's a bus lane. | |
| 4 | 2020-10-25 17:10 | Mike Baggaley | The only pedestrian prohibition sign in the UK is a walking person in a red circle. Otherwise pedestrians are allowed. We map the legal status, not safety. I would say it is far safer to walk in a bus lane than the main highway as there is much less traffic! | |
| 5 | 2020-10-25 17:24 | Pink Duck ♦151 | The pavements are legal for pedestrians of course, but that split-section of road is not legally permitted to walk and has no pavement. The resolution could be to explicitly create a footpath/sidewalk for pedestrian routing while maintaining the correct legal restriction on the road ways. | |
| 6 | 2020-10-25 18:00 | Mike Baggaley | Why do you think that walking is not legal on that section of road? It is legal to walk of any public highway whether or not is has a pavement unless it is a motorway, motorway slip or has a no walking sign. Most of the UK road signs apply to either vehicular traffic or motor vehicular traffic only.... | |
| 7 | 2020-10-25 18:04 | Pink Duck ♦151 | In this case there's separate pavement provision and the sign 'only' implies all except listed mode types, which to me excludes pedestrians. I've been trying to find where in law it's okay for pedestrians to walk in bus lanes or in zones such as this. Am fine with tagging to... | |
| 8 | 2020-10-25 18:36 | Pink Duck ♦151 | DfT "Know Your Traffic Signs" contains "Blue circles generally give a mandatory instruction,such as 'turn left', or indicate a route available only to particular classes of traffic, e.g. buses and cycles only" and "Blue rectangles are used for information signs exc... | |
| 9 | 2020-10-25 18:50 | Mike Baggaley | The copy at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519129/know-your-traffic-signs.pdf on page 16 says "A BLUE CIRCLE generally gives a positive(mandatory) instruction or indicates a route for use only byparticular classes of vehicle (... | |
| 10 | 2020-10-26 09:12 | Pink Duck ♦151 | Good spot, so I guess all that's needed is to revise motor_vehicle=no to vehicle=no, with the override more-specific exemptions for psv/bicycle and default UK foot=yes. | |
| 11 | 2020-10-26 09:25 | Pink Duck ♦151 | Re-reading that again though it is restricting route use to particular classes of vehicle, not necessarily exempting foot or horse-drawn carriage, say. TSRGD2016 Schedule 3 also headed "Upright signs that indicate regulatory requirements for moving traffic". So I remain unconvinced. | |
| 12 | 2020-10-26 18:34 | Mike Baggaley | If you look at the Road Traffic Act 1988 it contains only the following sections that relate to pedestrians:Directions to traffic and to pedestrians and traffic signs35.Drivers to comply with traffic directions36.Drivers to comply with traffic signs37.Directions to pedestriansWhere a c... | |
| 13 | 2020-10-27 09:37 | Pink Duck ♦151 | I found in RTRA 1984 Chapter 27, Traffic regulation orders outside Greater London may make order for facilitating: 1(c) "any class of traffic (including pedestrians)"Norwich City council made a TRO at https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/Norwich/Norwich-City-Council-Bowthorpe-... | |
| 90310009 by mrpacmanmap @ 2020-09-02 14:28 | 1 | 2020-09-23 10:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I do not think highway=historic is appropriate for roads that have been removed and have no historic interest. I suggest removed:highway or razed:highway would be better tags. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 90207771 by gomedia91 @ 2020-08-31 19:15 | 1 | 2020-09-23 10:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is Cardiff Airport Access Road actually the name of this road or is this really a description of the road?Regards,Mike |
| 89852637 by WakefieldMapper @ 2020-08-24 10:56 | 1 | 2020-09-14 23:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Luke, I think the traffic islands you have mapped would be better mapped as area:highway=traffic_island. The area tag only allows yes or no values, so area=highway is invalid. Also there seems to be some confusion as to whether traffic_calming=island is valid for areas - the traffic_calming tag w... |
| 70421453 by MacLondon @ 2019-05-19 21:57 | 1 | 2020-08-27 13:29 | Mike Baggaley | HI Mac, in this change relation 9603876 has been added but has no detail. Should it be part of LCN 33?Cheers,Mike |
| 89919652 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-08-25 14:04 | 1 | 2020-08-25 21:36 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I disagree. And even if they should be the same, I think 'unclassified' is the wrong tag for the northbound sign, since it's main role is as a slip road from a motorway onto a secondary road. |
| 2 | 2020-08-26 08:38 | Mike Baggaley | I would be OK with the northbound carriageway being a continuation of the trunk link, even though it is not strictly one. I do not think it can be considered part of the B1043 which is how it was previously tagged. The south bound cannot be considered to be any kind of link road. It is a slightly un... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-26 08:53 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I think 'secondary' is probably best (though without the ref). (I'm basing this partly upon the various wiki pages for highway links). | |
| 4 | 2020-08-26 09:08 | Mike Baggaley | As it is not part of the B1043, it should not be secondary. If it is being considered a link between B1043 and A1(M) then trunk link is the correct tag. If not then unclassified seems to me to be best. The wiki says "Try not to split up the link into one part belonging to one road and one to th... | |
| 5 | 2020-08-26 09:30 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I think that statement is relating to the case of a simple link with no intermediate junctions, with the instruction being to not choose an arbitrary division point.I think this point is relevant (from the highway_link page):"A preexisting street used to connect two major highways is not a ... | |
| 6 | 2020-08-26 13:51 | Mike Baggaley | I think that the statement "Instead it should be tagged as the normal highway it previously was, probably equivalent to the lower classification of the ones it connects" would not suggest secondary here. If we consider the case where there is no slip road from the A1(M) (i.e. we are lookin... | |
| 7 | 2020-08-26 19:45 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I think "normal" in that sentence means "not a _link". The example given in the footnote showed a highway link using a pre-existing unclassified road to join onto a secondary road. The portion of the unclassified road involved was then tagged as a secondary road. (Both roads were... | |
| 8 | 2020-08-27 12:49 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I've returned this to highway=secondary in changeset 89919652, because I think that is much more appropriate. I wouldn't object to this being changed to secondary_link, and/or the reverse direction being changed to a matching classification. | |
| 45146331 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-01-13 20:39 | 1 | 2020-08-18 11:19 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Hi MikeI realise this was a long time ago, but why did you move the name to description?It appears to be a valid name based on OS Opendata.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2020-08-18 12:58 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Phil, it looks like I inadvertently grabbed the wrong way when attempting to remove the name of the adjacent alleyway which had been named as "Plasygamil access road" which I revisited a few days later. Well spotted.Cheers,Mike | |
| 88893852 by Colin Blackburn (BGS) @ 2020-08-03 20:22 | 1 | 2020-08-04 13:33 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Colin, I think the old airfield would probably be better tagged using \tabandoned:aeroway=runway and other similar tags for other sections. I do not think highway=unclassified is appropriate (there might be bits where highway=service would be OK). Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-08-04 13:41 | Colin Blackburn (BGS) ♦3 | Hi Mike,Being relatively new to this I am a little cautious in changing existing tags - even though the highway made no sense! But now I know there is a tag to cover this case I will review. Thanks, Colin | |
| 88807479 by BernardV @ 2020-08-01 06:21 | 1 | 2020-08-04 12:29 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note that it is incorrect to name a highway with the name of a long distance route. There is an existing route relation with that name already attached to these ways. You can see the routes at waymarkedtrails.org which uses the OSM data (they are not shown on the standard OSM map).Reg... |
| 2 | 2020-08-04 13:04 | BernardV ♦3 | Thanks for that information and for that useful looking website that shows the South Downs Way. Sorry to have upset your day! | |
| 87852497 by TomMarriott @ 2020-07-11 12:23 | 1 | 2020-08-02 18:55 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. Please note that when adding names you should only use proper nouns that are the names by which the objects are known. If an object has no name or you do not know what it is, please do not make up a descriptive name, just leave the name empty.Happy mapping,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-08-02 19:38 | TomMarriott ♦1 | Mike..thanks for your comment, although I'm a little unsure. please bear with me....Are you saying that I should not call the cemetery a cemetery because it is not a proper noun ? [Yes I'm well aware of what a proper noun is].Or is it something else ??If that is the preferred etique... | |
| 3 | 2020-08-02 23:01 | Mike Baggaley | HI Tom, we know the object is a cemetery because it is tagged with landuse=cemetery, and the name field should be used to give the actual name of the object (e.g. Highfields Cemetery) not used to either duplicate the object type or provide descriptive information (e.g. we often see something incorre... | |
| 4 | 2020-08-03 13:20 | TomMarriott ♦1 | Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I'll take care to consult the Wiki more thoroughly.Cheers, Tom | |
| 5 | 2020-08-03 13:22 | TomMarriott ♦1 | PS. You are right re the App - I used "Street Complete", and that is very limited in information and does indeed encourage naming... | |
| 88687412 by Matt Brayley @ 2020-07-29 15:42 | 1 | 2020-08-02 21:31 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, following this change the end of Picton Lane (way 131823450) is oneway and meets a oneway in the opposite direction, so vehicles can go nowhere. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 88254432 by duopica @ 2020-07-20 15:20 | 1 | 2020-08-02 18:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please do not make up names for objects. Names should only be proper nouns, not just a repetition of the object type.Cheers,Mike |
| 88045381 by pamman @ 2020-07-15 17:51 | 1 | 2020-08-02 08:56 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change way 449571362 has been marked as having no foot access, but it has designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 87846697 by daveemtb @ 2020-07-11 08:25 | 1 | 2020-08-02 08:53 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in tghis change you have marked way 408557375 as having no pedestrian access but also having a designation of public_footpath. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 88200904 by user_5121 @ 2020-07-19 13:38 | 1 | 2020-08-02 08:17 | Mike Baggaley | Hi in this change you have tagged way 33464332 as private, however it has two walking routes along it. Can you please review whether the routes need moving or the access should allow pedestrians?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-08-02 16:27 | user_5121 ♦11 | Sorry about breaking that, I have made a fix for it. The track is clearly private and I don't think the right of way (bridleway) goes along it. I have added a fixme tag saying it needs to be surveyed. | |
| 88372000 by rskedgell @ 2020-07-22 23:44 | 1 | 2020-08-02 07:38 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 172192553, can you clarify whether the refs 453 and S115 are bridge refs (in which case they should be in bridge:ref) or right of way refs (in which case they should be in prow_ref), and why there are 2 refs?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-08-02 15:11 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | Hi Mike,453 appears to be CRT's bridge reference, so I've moved it to bridge:ref. S115 appears to be a Lea Valley Regional Park ref (presumably for the bridge structure), which I have left in the ref tag.It's very unlikely to be a PROW ref, as this is a recently reopened permi... | |
| 87505872 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-07-03 13:22 | 1 | 2020-07-03 14:33 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Which aerial imagery did you use for these amendments, as you placed the Rush Hill way across a pavement? |
| 2 | 2020-07-03 14:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, I used Bing, however, I only straightened lines slightly. The incoming flare from Rush hill had a kink in it. The whole roundabout is slightly off Bing, but I did not realign it as the image is not very clear. It looks like the whole roundabout needs to move SW slightly, which would likely ... | |
| 81426230 by Paul Berry @ 2020-02-24 23:05 | 1 | 2020-07-02 21:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the status of way 54962163 (Bridge Street) changed to oneway in this changeset. It has oneway segments in the opposite direction to and from it, which doesn't look correct. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-07-03 08:34 | Paul Berry ♦124 | Hi Mike,Good spot. I've corrected it on changeset #87491295.Thanks,Paul | |
| 87260996 by StephenRD @ 2020-06-28 20:48 | 1 | 2020-07-02 15:40 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this change you have set access=private on a number of ways that have highway=footway with designation=public_footpath and foot=yes. This has no effect on the access and is leading to confusion over what access there should be. If you mean that other access than pedestrian than foot is priva... |
| 2 | 2020-07-02 16:44 | StephenRD ♦1 | Hi Mike. Would access=no be better? Essentially, the information is that access to the general public isn't permitted except on foot. This seems a much more elegant way of conveying the access information than listing modes of transport that aren't permitted, which is long and non-exhausti... | |
| 3 | 2020-07-02 16:48 | StephenRD ♦1 | Sorry, just re-read the start of your query. I'm not aware of having done that or the reasons for that - in general where I've made that change on particular ways, in the broader Suffolk area, it has been to mark tracks as access=private that are public_footpath or public_bridleway, with a... | |
| 4 | 2020-07-02 17:59 | Mike Baggaley | HI Stephen, thanks for the quick response. Whilst both access=no and access=private are 'correct', when used with highway=footway they lead to confusion because it is quite common for mappers to add access=no to indicate that a path has been closed, whilst forgetting that foot=yes will ove... | |
| 5 | 2020-07-02 18:22 | StephenRD ♦1 | Thanks, Mike. My original focus was on the track, so my change(s) on the footway(s) can be reverted. I believe I have done this (my skills in selecting particular listed ways from a changeset are not good), but if there are any I've missed, I'm happy for you to change. | |
| 87348392 by Hallamshire123 @ 2020-06-30 12:11 | 1 | 2020-07-02 15:04 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please do not add the names of trails to highways - trail names belong on route relations. Highways names should only contain the name of the road or other highway.Cheers,Mike |
| 87337660 by asingardenof @ 2020-06-30 09:00 | 1 | 2020-07-02 14:54 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change a number of ways have been changed from primary to secondary but have ref A6539. If they are no longer part of the A6539, please remove the ref, otherwise the classification was correct. A roads are either primary or trunk. Can you please review this change?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-07-02 15:19 | asingardenof ♦1 | As a highway engineer I just want to clarify this. In non-OSM terms, all trunk roads are primary routes, but not all primary routes are trunk roads. Similarly not all A-roads are trunk roads: some are county A-roads, into which category the A6539 and A639 fall. You can tell the status on the ground ... | |
| 3 | 2020-07-02 17:21 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | We are aware of the rules followed by highway engineers however OSM is an international project and in the UK we map roads according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_United_KingdomHence all A roads with green signs are trunk, other A roads primary and (most) B roads are second... | |
| 86483321 by markmc @ 2020-06-10 20:47 | 1 | 2020-06-28 11:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 556422063 (Coop shop) has been tagged as landuse=residential in this change, but it also has building=retail which doesn't seem right. There should not be both landuse and building tags on the same way - can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-06-28 11:09 | markmc ♦1 | Hi Mike, the lower part of the building in question is retail (co-op supermarket) and the next 2 floors are residential and holiday apartments. How do you set it as a mixed environment?Regards Mark Mc. | |
| 3 | 2020-06-28 11:21 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Marc, I suggest removing the landuse tag and set building=yes. Then add two more ways using the same nodes as the existing outline and tag one with building=retail and level=0 and the other with building=residential and level=1. You could also add building:levels=3 to the existing way and add ano... | |
| 4 | 2020-06-28 11:24 | markmc ♦1 | Ok, thanks Mike, I'll get it changed. | |
| 5 | 2020-06-28 11:29 | Mike Baggaley | Oops, I meant to say use building:part rather than building for the individual levels. | |
| 86428437 by The_JF @ 2020-06-09 22:08 | 1 | 2020-06-11 21:44 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please do not put right of way references into the name field. The name field should only have proper nouns, not references or made up descriptions. The UK format used for prow_ref is preferred to include an abbreviation of the type of prow e.g. Leeds City FP 34. Cheers, Mike |
| 69148295 by sobbomapper @ 2019-04-12 12:59 | 1 | 2020-06-08 23:06 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is there some reason you have added designation=public_bridleway with foot=no on way 409965034? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-06-09 15:28 | sobbomapper ♦3 | Just an oops, as I was concentrating on the Heart of Wales Line relation, but having just walked it at the time, I should have caught the error. Now changed to foot = designated, and updated the 3 linked paths. Thanks for being vigilant, Martyn (sobbomapper) | |
| 77150324 by doublah @ 2019-11-15 23:09 | 1 | 2020-06-07 22:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I wonder whether you know whether the Albert Embankment is open to pedestrians, as way 8118810 currently has access=no on it for some reason. If you have some knowledge, can you please review this way? Thanks, Mike |
| 2 | 2020-06-09 18:55 | doublah ♦19 | I think it was closed last year for works, not sure if it still is, will check when I can. | |
| 86284249 by drnoble @ 2020-06-06 16:15 | 1 | 2020-06-07 13:23 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have added access=no to the bridge, but as it has foot=yes and bicycle=yes, access=no has no effect. I suggest the foot and bicycle tags need to be removed, and ideally a note saying when it expected to be open added.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-06-10 19:34 | drnoble ♦49 | Mike, thanks for the suggestion - I have just updated it. | |
| 86289453 by Redingensian @ 2020-06-06 19:58 | 1 | 2020-06-07 13:18 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, hope you don't mind me commenting, but please don't put references in the name field, which should only contain proper nouns. I'm assuming these references are public right of way references. In the UK, we put these in the prow_ref field. Further information is available at https:... |
| 2 | 2020-07-05 22:08 | Redingensian ♦3 | Hi Mike and thank you for the comment, appreciated. I see I've had a number of similar comments which, for whatever reason, have not provoked an alert. I'll use prow_ref. Best wishes, Jeremy. | |
| 86156211 by mrpacmanmap @ 2020-06-03 22:55 | 1 | 2020-06-07 08:49 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this change way 812675933 (Trinity Street) has been added with access=no but bicycle=yes. This is an odd combination, as it prohibits pedestrians but allows bicycles. There appears to be nowhere for cyclists to go as the roundabout it leads to just has access=no. Can you please review?Tha... |
| 61053487 by MacLondon @ 2018-07-25 11:35 | 1 | 2020-06-07 08:39 | Mike Baggaley | HI Mac, way 500207364 (a section of Regent's Canal towpath) was tagged as temporarily closed in 2017 with access=no. It still has that tag on it, but has bicycle=yes in this change. If this is now open, can you remove access=no? Thanks, Mike |
| 2 | 2020-06-08 22:08 | MacLondon ♦215 | Hi Mike. I was around there about 2 weeks this is indeed open, and probably has been open for some time. I've now remove the access=no. Regards, Mac | |
| 86074997 by bellarminehead @ 2020-06-02 08:26 | 1 | 2020-06-03 10:59 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Welcome to Open Street Map. I see you have gone to great lengths to add the name South Downs Way to a number of ways. Unfortunately however, this is incorrect. South Downs Way is the name of a route, not the individual ways that make up the route, and the route is already tagged. The OpenStreetM... |
| 2 | 2020-06-03 12:05 | bellarminehead ♦1 | Thank-you Mike, and apologies.Do you have a preferred or recommended method for me to revert all these small changes? I could manually edit each segment and delete the name (I only added "South Downs Way" where there was no name beforehand). But I suspect you might wish me to use a mor... | |
| 3 | 2020-06-03 12:18 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, thanks for your quick response. There are tools to revert changes, but unfortunately I've never used them, as I think they are mainly based on the JOSM editor, which I don't use. I'm assuming that as it mainly used by advanced users, you're probably not using it either. The b... | |
| 4 | 2020-06-03 13:09 | bellarminehead ♦1 | Hi, yes, I did see some info on some complex-looking changeset revert tools. I am actually quite happy to keep things simple, and just delete the names manually. This is easy enough because I certainly didn't overwrite any existing way names. | |
| 5 | 2020-06-04 13:48 | bellarminehead ♦1 | Mike: all my name additions have now been deleted. I checked things over a few times and I'm pretty sure it's all done. Thanks for the pointer. | |
| 6 | 2020-06-04 14:31 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks for your efforts. A quick search for South Downs Way revealed only bus stops as matches, so it looks like you have got them all. Cheers, Mike | |
| 7 | 2020-06-04 14:49 | bellarminehead ♦1 | I wonder if finding only bus stops wrt the SDW might prompt others to make the same mistake as I did, in the future... :) | |
| 83784306 by MP80 @ 2020-04-19 20:05 | 1 | 2020-06-03 23:16 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this change you have added names such as Easy Access Trail to various ways. To create a trail route, you need to create a relation, tag it with type=route, route=walking (if easy) or route=hiking (if more difficult) and network=lwn (local walking network). You can then add each of the ways to... |
| 85961244 by kreuzschnabel @ 2020-05-29 18:15 | 1 | 2020-06-03 13:50 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see that on ways 809650367 and 809650368 you have set motor_vehicle=agricultural;forestry. This means that any agricultural vehicle and any forestry vehicle may have access. It does not mean that the tracks are for agricultural or forestry use. If these are farmers tracks or forestry tracks wi... |
| 85996625 by gomedia91 @ 2020-05-31 01:22 | 1 | 2020-06-03 13:40 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 115185781 seems to have an odd combination of access tags including access=permit, motor_vehicle=no and psv=yes. If the access (excluding foot and bike) is for public service vehicles and other motors with permits then you need motor_vehicle=permit and psv=yes with no overall access tag. Can... |
| 2 | 2020-06-03 17:29 | gomedia91 ♦8 | Thanks for that. Have updated. | |
| 85193982 by finnelcampbell @ 2020-05-14 10:09 | 1 | 2020-06-03 13:29 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 614951911 has highway=footway along with both access=private and foot=yes. This leads to confusion as to whether access by foot is or is not intended. Can you please remove one of the two tags? If it is a large path that allows private vehicles you may want to add vehicle=private.Cheers,... |
| 86079236 by RanscombeManager @ 2020-06-02 10:50 | 1 | 2020-06-03 13:22 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point I would like to bring to your attention - the default for highway=footway is for pedestrian access only. If you add access=no and foot=yes, without examining the change history it is not possible to determine whether these were added at the same tim... |
| 85988793 by Paper @ 2020-05-30 17:50 | 1 | 2020-06-03 12:55 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, could you clarify why way 513156943 has been changed from foot=designated to foot=no? It apparently has the Saxon Shore Way running along it. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 85992532 by Jèrriais janne @ 2020-05-30 20:31 | 1 | 2020-06-03 10:40 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is the ref for this road really X2 or is it a mistake? Shouldn't it be A8?Cheers,Mike |
| 85567836 by PeterMapit @ 2020-05-21 17:53 | 1 | 2020-05-31 22:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review way 806908066 which you have marked as a public footpath but with no foot access?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-06-01 06:57 | PeterMapit ♦3 | I have removed the public footpath tag and tagged access as private for all. Thanks for bringing my error to my attention. | |
| 85896681 by Pedro W8 @ 2020-05-28 14:56 | 1 | 2020-05-31 21:03 | Mike Baggaley | HI, please note that when adding footpath refs, these go in the prow_ref field, not tha ref or name field, as per the UK tagging guidelines.Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 85699336 by jovewi5320 @ 2020-05-25 02:38 | 1 | 2020-05-31 20:24 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this change looks wrong as it results in the cycleway from Princes Parkway ending with nowhere to go. The section of road under the motorway is tagged as having a cycle lane, but access has been changed to prohibit bicycles and pedestrians. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 84769535 by Mauls @ 2020-05-06 15:38 | 1 | 2020-05-08 12:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review way 655922630 which was landuse=residential but now also has a building tag - there is another building on way 23163847 contained within this way, so one of them needs to go. If 23163847 is no longer the building outline, please also remove the landuse tag from 655922630 so... |
| 84789813 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-05-06 23:32 | 1 | 2020-05-07 08:06 | JodaStephen ♦59 | This is my standard tagging for areas like this, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40128/-0.19643 for example. The key question is when does something stop being just a traffic island and start being a plaza? FWIW, I think for larger islands like this, having them rendered is useful (as o... |
| 2 | 2020-05-07 08:09 | JodaStephen ♦59 | See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40850/-0.21561 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40728/-0.21938 both of which are a lot clearer for pedestrians as currently tagged. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84789813... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-07 08:18 | Mike Baggaley | This clearly is not a pedestrianised area and tagging it as such so that it displays in grey on the map is known as tagging for the renderer, which is frowned upon by the OSM community. Giving it two different highway tags is also completely confusing. | |
| 84557961 by Richardsun @ 2020-05-03 10:46 | 1 | 2020-05-06 23:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Welcome to Open Street Map. Just a quick comment - please do not include house numbers in the highway name. This field should only contain the name of the road.Thanks,Mike |
| 84117418 by Hi-5ers @ 2020-04-25 18:32 | 1 | 2020-05-04 23:32 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note that access=agricultural means that anyone with an agricultural vehicle can use it. It does not mean that it is for use by the farmer. If it is for the farmer's use only then access=private is the correct tag. As there are almost no places in the UK where access=agricultural is ... |
| 2 | 2020-05-09 11:13 | Hi-5ers ♦2 | Thanks for this help. We were following the definitions made by someone else but can now see the logic in what you are suggesting. We have made the changes. | |
| 84425080 by Georgecrozer @ 2020-04-30 16:10 | 1 | 2020-05-04 22:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, hope you do not mind me commenting, but please do not add descriptive text such as "Solomons Farm to Ropers Lane Roundabout RS46" to the name field which should only contain proper nouns. Also, the public right of way reference should only go in the prow_ref field not both prow_ref and... |
| 2 | 2020-05-05 12:05 | Georgecrozer ♦3 | Thanks Mike I don't mind at all you commenting, it helps me learn the correct way. I had had a similar comment from Bernard. My problem here is a local one Residents wanting to use designated footpaths have now idea which paths are or are not designated. most of the paths do not either have l... | |
| 3 | 2020-05-05 12:19 | Georgecrozer ♦3 | Perhaps just I could name each important leg ie Solomons path, Ropers path. and put the designation as you point out?? | |
| 4 | 2022-01-12 13:10 | SK53 ♦864 | Very late to this, but you may not be aware of SomeoneElse's OSM specifically designed for walkers. This area is shown here https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=54.209&lon=-1.23322. This map shows Rights of Way designations, named trails mapped as relations and pro... | |
| 84113162 by CantrayJDW @ 2020-04-25 16:29 | 1 | 2020-05-04 21:59 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, ways 796240179 and 796240180 added in this changeset have bicycle and horse allowed but pedestrians are prohibited. Is this correct? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-05-05 06:36 | CantrayJDW ♦3 | Thanks Mike,Finger trouble. Getting better as experience grows. It is a pity that the default isn't Scottish outdoor access, or maybe I can change it?Corrected now.And I will recheck all the paths/tracks in High Wood (Petty) when I have finished mapping them.Regards, | |
| 83499564 by deadboring @ 2020-04-13 23:42 | 1 | 2020-04-15 11:17 | Tallguy ♦22 | Hi & welcome to OpenStreetMap. If I can offer a little friendly guidance from one mapper to another; Try to save more often, and before changing the location you are working on - it looks a little suspicious to change things in St Pauls Cray, and Medway & there are some new people who do ... |
| 2 | 2020-05-01 23:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hi there, I notice that node 713440523 ( bicycle parking) edited in this change appears to have inadvertently merged with the data of another node containing bus stop data. Can you please review this?Thanks,Mike | |
| 3 | 2021-02-10 10:21 | JayTurnr ♦155 | Hi Mike, I fixed the bicycle parking in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99033315 :) | |
| 83408530 by m_chelmsford @ 2020-04-11 18:51 | 1 | 2020-04-15 21:47 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset way 751513070 has been changed from a residential road to a footway. However, in its access tags it has psv=yes, which is inconsistent with being a footway. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 83259490 by spavulur @ 2020-04-08 14:30 | 1 | 2020-04-15 18:00 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have marked ways 279334462 and 789328118 as private, but they appear to have the Greenwich Meridian Trail running along them. Should the access be vehicle=private rather than access=private? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-04-16 11:31 | spavulur ♦7 | thanks for the response on our edits. This edit is partially based on the driver feedback and available resources.i have modified the access tag based on the barrier present, it will be helpful if the ground knowledge can improve our edits. Please find the changeset(83645735) for the suggested modif... | |
| 83080862 by impvan @ 2020-04-04 19:08 | 1 | 2020-04-08 14:25 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 266361988 you have added access=designated and ref=Llanrug #75. The former is not a valid value - designated can only be used for specific transport types. Did you intend foot=designated (which normally goes with designation=public_footpath)? Also, if Llanrug #75 is a public right of way ... |
| 2 | 2020-04-09 16:51 | impvan ♦4 | Well I've tried to make sense of the Wiki and MapThePaths; neither is particularly clear IMO so I gave it best-effort...Clarify for me then: Gwynedd's PRoWs, which according to Mapthepaths are "Licence:not OSM compatible" cannot be simply copied onto aerial mapping; /and/ the p... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-09 17:06 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | I would include the community name to be clear so prow_ref="Llanrug 75"Cheers Phil | |
| 4 | 2020-04-09 17:08 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I think you should use the following:highway=footwayfoot=designateddesignation=public_footpathprow_ref=Llanrug FP 75There is some information at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_R... | |
| 83264362 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-04-08 16:41 | 1 | 2020-04-08 18:52 | ndm ♦889 | *Please* don't make "invisible" access changes when local mappers will consider this to be (previously) mapped fully/correctly. At the very *least* add a note on the map, so that locals can update it in the future -- unless you're prepared to remember to do so (add a date in your... |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 21:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, sorry, I don't understand your comment. My change was correcting the previous update which set foot=conditional=no, bicycle=conditional=no, horse=conditional=no along with a note saying the track was closed. These access conditions were invalid and can not be considered to be mapped fully o... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-08 22:13 | ndm ♦889 | Hi Mike,You're right the main issue was the preceding changeset -- but setting access to "no" makes it hard to tell what it should be when the track reopens. Cheers, Neil | |
| 83080332 by Some1InDisguise @ 2020-04-04 18:47 | 1 | 2020-04-08 14:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is there some reason you have changed foot=designated to foot=no on way 696948358 which has designation=public_footpath, or was this a mistake? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 17:58 | Some1InDisguise ♦1 | Purely a mistake!Thanks for pointing it out, I have now updated | |
| 83066147 by JF1 @ 2020-04-04 10:25 | 1 | 2020-04-08 13:16 | Mike Baggaley | HI, please do not put public right of way references in the name field. The name field should contain proper nouns only, not descriptions/references or other made up values. The public right of way reference goes in prow_ref.Regards,Mike |
| 82759368 by Andy_W @ 2020-03-28 17:23 | 1 | 2020-03-31 23:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have added access=no to some footways that also have foot=permissive and designation=permissive_footpath. Did you mean to indicate that there is no longer any access to these paths? If so, please remove the foot and designation tags which override the access=no tag. If not, pl... |
| 2 | 2020-04-01 07:44 | Andy_W ♦9 | This seems to be a "feature" of the iD editor. In Allowed Access, when you set All=no and Foot=permissive, then it sets access=no.These are permissive footpaths.Will check all the tags for these recent edits.Thanks.Andy. | |
| 82760648 by mountainmonkey @ 2020-03-28 18:13 | 1 | 2020-03-31 22:36 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I'm assuming that Symington, Biggar & Peebles Branch is the name of the abandoned railway along which various tracks and roads run. I don't think the name should be applied to the roads as this suggests it is the name of the road, and probably not to the other highways. I suggest t... |
| 2 | 2020-04-01 08:43 | mountainmonkey ♦18 | Good point, agreed, done. | |
| 82731767 by motogs @ 2020-03-27 20:05 | 1 | 2020-03-31 13:27 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, for way 785185091, I suggest that rather than highway=yes, you use highway=road or disused:highway=road if you are unsure of what type of road it is.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-31 15:41 | motogs ♦27 | Hi Mike, and thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I agree with you and I've changed it to highway=road as it didn't look disused to me when I saw it. Though still vague (but helped by the other tags) it's at least better than highway=yes.Regards,motogs | |
| 82631720 by MacLondon @ 2020-03-25 23:07 | 1 | 2020-03-30 22:39 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is there some reason why cycleway 784640692 alongside Embankment has access=no? It appears to have national route 4 along it. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-31 11:10 | MacLondon ♦215 | Hi Mike. This part of the sidewalk has been closed off for several months as part of the Tideway project works at Putney Bridge. It would seem as if contraflow cycling isn't allowed here currently, but the sidewalk with the contraflow cycle track presumably will get reopened when works finish, ... | |
| 69563743 by sobbomapper @ 2019-04-25 12:51 | 1 | 2020-03-30 22:30 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 685848259 you have set access=private with a note that it needs checking. It appears to have the Heart of Wales Line Trail along it, which suggests it should have at least pedestrian access. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-30 23:40 | sobbomapper ♦3 | Hi Mike - thanks for pointing this out. I've checked this with Map the Paths, and it's a public bridleway. I've added the appropriate tags. I think at the time of editing the data may not have been OGL compatible. There is plenty to check in this area. But for the time being arm... | |
| 82717279 by ecatmur @ 2020-03-27 13:40 | 1 | 2020-03-30 22:27 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change way 683585004 has been set so that there is no access, but the Thames Path runs along it. Can you add a note to say why it is closed and whether it is likely to reopen?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-31 13:18 | ecatmur ♦34 | It's the eastern stage of the Fulham Riverside development. Should definitely reopen once that's completed. | |
| 75329466 by SomeoneElse @ 2019-10-05 22:43 | 1 | 2020-03-30 20:25 | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 471534803 has been tagged as private in this change, but it appears to have the Trans Pennine Trail along it. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-31 00:00 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | It looks like that arm of the TPT in OSM https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10528977 was created in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79126829, 3 months after this edit, and the changeset source suggests that it wasn't surveyed. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/471534780 is a public... | |
| 79132475 by AlwynWellington @ 2020-01-02 22:20 | 1 | 2020-03-30 20:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the Augustine Camino route is marked as travelling along way 4420685, a private track named The Mint. I think it should go further along Church Hill before turning into St Nicholas Church. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-31 01:44 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | Mike, thanks for your enquiry.I became aware of this route in mid 2019 and purchased the guidebook.And I had it on my list to walk when in this part of the UK in mid 2020. I use an Android app on my tablet for all my walks, no matter where in the world, and so need them mapped before settin... | |
| 3 | 2020-04-09 03:06 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | Mike, I've used some spare time that has become available to clear my desk.And I found my hard copy of the Augustine Camino Walking Guide.The guide says it uses maps from the OS 1:25000 series. And, like maps of the same area at the same scale, details are different.The pages are not num... | |
| 82265310 by PeterPan99 @ 2020-03-16 16:09 | 1 | 2020-03-19 23:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, V8 is already in the loc_ref field and I do not think it should be in the name field. Can you please review this change?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-20 15:26 | PeterPan99 ♦43 | Hi Mike,Thank you for raising this issue. I did think for quite a while before making this edit. However, as a resident of Milton Keynes for almost 20 years, I certainly regard the name of that “grid road” as “V8 Marlborough Street”.My reasons are: 1.\tRoad signs sho... | |
| 3 | 2020-03-20 15:59 | Mike Baggaley | HI Peter, thanks for your detailed reply. I certainly don't consider this to be tagging for the renderer! It is simply that when numbers are used in sequence, this usually indicates a reference rather than a name ( although I know there are some street names such as Road 1, Avenue 2 etc). It is... | |
| 4 | 2020-03-20 17:18 | PeterPan99 ♦43 | Hi Mike, Thank you for your prompt reply. I regret that I do still feel, quite strongly, that "V8" is part of the name, so I will not be reverting my edits. I am not sure that I would accept the Post Office as the final authority on addresses. All they really use is the house number and... | |
| 81904025 by JF1 @ 2020-03-07 16:42 | 1 | 2020-03-19 23:37 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if adding public right of way references, please put them just in the prow_ref field, not the name field.Thanks,Mike |
| 81961549 by thevetchlings @ 2020-03-09 11:45 | 1 | 2020-03-19 23:31 | Mike Baggaley | HI, please do not use descriptions such as Car Park for the names of roads - if a road has no name, please leave the field empty.Cheers,Mike |
| 82023074 by Wibblejunior @ 2020-03-10 20:39 | 1 | 2020-03-19 23:12 | Mike Baggaley | HI in this change you have tagged ways 24941507, 24941513, 24941516 and 498811864 (Hall Walks) as highway=primary. However, they have ref=B1283. Are these now part of the A182? If so, please change the ref. If not, please revert to highway=secondary as per the UK tagging guidelines.Thanks,Mike |
| 82251707 by srinatpa @ 2020-03-16 10:12 | 1 | 2020-03-19 22:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if changing access to only allow emergency vehicles, please note that setting access=no means pedestrians and cyclists cannot use the road. A more usual access would be motor_vehicle=no + emergency=yes, which allows pedestrians and cyclists to pass the barrier, but prevents motor vehicles other ... |
| 2 | 2020-03-20 14:19 | srinatpa ♦16 | Hi Mike Baggaley,Thanks for checking into our edit. Our edits are partially based on the GPS traces of our delivery partner. We will take this as a learning from the community and make sure it will be improving our editing quality.Regards,Srinatpa. | |
| 81841991 by JimboE @ 2020-03-05 23:12 | 1 | 2020-03-19 22:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this is not legally accessible on foot (i.e.there is a no pedestrians sign), please use foot=no, rather than access=no. If it is just unsafe for pedestrians then it should not be tagged as illegal for pedestrians. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-04-08 12:34 | JimboE ♦1 | Hi MikeMany thanks for the suggestion, I have changed access to yes and foot no, based on your advice. It's part of a main motorway so certainly no safe for pedestrians.ThanksJames | |
| 82224751 by IonaTheGreat @ 2020-03-15 18:28 | 1 | 2020-03-19 22:09 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this change looks to be incorrect. access=no and motor_vehicle=yes allows all motor vehicles, but denies cycles and pedestrians. I believe this was correct before the change, with access unset and motor_vehicle=no (with psv=yes and hgv=yes, which are still set). Can you please review your change... |
| 2 | 2020-03-19 23:53 | IonaTheGreat ♦4 | I think I was unaware of the 'all tags' feature when doing this, as I seem to recall it appearing to me as if all vehicular traffic was restricted. You are correct, good catch and thank you! What's the easiest way to revert, or should I return the settings manually? | |
| 81748568 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-03-04 00:18 | 1 | 2020-03-05 17:55 | Strimplers ♦33 | There is a turn restriction on Church Rd. One may turn left onto Westhampnett Rd but not turn right on the roundabout. |
| 2 | 2020-03-05 18:14 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks, I think the restriction is now correct. | |
| 81782066 by brianboru @ 2020-03-04 15:26 | 1 | 2020-03-05 17:06 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Brian, in this change way 10024892 has been changed to highway=abandoned. However, it has Ward End Cycle Route running along it. Can you please review whether this is now a cycleway or whether the cycle route now takes an alternative route?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-05 18:39 | brianboru ♦158 | Thanks for this Mike I will investigate | |
| 3 | 2020-03-06 16:22 | brianboru ♦158 | There's another cycle route that used thisas well . Interestingly the construction tag has been there for some months. I've added a sensible placeholder diversion until I can confirm the official diversion. A survey shows no official signage | |
| 81598783 by Daveymorrisuk @ 2020-02-28 16:26 | 1 | 2020-03-04 08:56 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have added access=official to way 777101844 in this change. This is not a recognised value. If this is a public footpath, please use foot=designated + designation=public_footpath and omit the access tag. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-04 08:58 | Daveymorrisuk ♦8 | Hi Mike,Sorry that wasn't me. I was actually removing official from ways for the exact same reasons you mentioned.I'll take a look at the way in any case and look to correct it as well.Thanks | |
| 81654342 by ◪ Jarv @ 2020-03-01 21:09 | 1 | 2020-03-03 20:35 | Mike Baggaley | HI, Thomas, are names such as Coopers Hill Emergency Turnaround Point and Weatherhill Emergency Southbound Access real names of roads or do they describe the purpose? If the latter, can you please remove the name tags and replace with description?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-05 14:42 | ◪ Jarv ♦240 | That's what they are called in official documentation.However will move to description because that's probably more appropriate | |
| 81349560 by dm4244 @ 2020-02-22 16:30 | 1 | 2020-02-23 13:03 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. Please note that the names of long distance routes should not be added to individual path or road segments. The name should only be on the route relation of which the individual segments are members. The default Open Street Map renderer does not show long distance rou... |
| 81105503 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-02-17 09:38 | 1 | 2020-02-21 16:18 | ACarlotti ♦158 | I don't think this is a correct fix - you've just changed one incomplete mapping of the car park into a different less accurate mapping of the car park (the 'dead end' you removed was the exit from the bottom of the spiral ramp; you've redirected it to connect to an exit fro... |
| 2 | 2020-02-21 16:53 | Mike Baggaley | Apologies for getting this wrong. The ways were already connected, but with the opposite direction in one segment, which looked wrong. I've reverted and added amenity=parking_entrance on the dead end. Could you please check this is now correct? Thanks, Mike | |
| 81106089 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-02-17 09:50 | 1 | 2020-02-17 13:14 | Peter Newman ♦33 | Is this not still a dead end, as you've got two one way roads in opposite directions at the corner, or is there actually another missing way out of the parking on the right? |
| 2 | 2020-02-17 13:21 | Mike Baggaley | That is how it was before the change. I deleted one of the ways and extended the other. | |
| 3 | 2020-02-17 13:32 | Peter Newman ♦33 | Ah apologies, the rendered map hasn't updated or I'm doing something daft or similar. | |
| 4 | 2020-02-17 13:48 | Mike Baggaley | If you press the Ctrl key while clicking refresh then the locally cached images should get replaced. | |
| 5 | 2020-02-17 14:00 | Peter Newman ♦33 | Yeah Ctrl+F5 fixed it, that's curious given I'd not visited that bit of the map before seeing the comment. I guess there was still some delay in it re-rendering and I got the old cached one in the past. | |
| 81051746 by Frecks @ 2020-02-15 19:02 | 1 | 2020-02-16 14:16 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please do not add the name of a long distance route (e.g. Oxfordshire Way) as the name of individual path segments. The name of the route should only be on the route relation of which the path segments are members. Route names are not shown on the default OSM renderer, but can be seen at waymark... |
| 2 | 2020-02-16 16:28 | Frecks ♦5 | I have removed the relationship from the road from Foscot to Idbury (it became attached when I mistakenly joined this road segment to an adjacent road segment which is part of the route). I assume that you have corrected the other path names. | |
| 3 | 2020-02-16 17:09 | Mike Baggaley | yes I've removed the path names. | |
| 4 | 2020-02-27 23:24 | DaveF ♦1,563 | HiAs you've deleted the bridge over Kingham Station how do passengers get to the opposite platform?Are you sure the footpath here no longer exists?https://osm.org/go/eunyG79Mw--?m= | |
| 5 | 2020-02-28 16:22 | Frecks ♦5 | I've fixed both of these now showing the new footbridge recently constructed at Kingham station and I have reinstated the missing footpath based on the OCC prow map. | |
| 6 | 2020-02-28 16:26 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Great. Thanks | |
| 72633148 by KingstonTime @ 2019-07-25 08:35 | 1 | 2020-02-13 14:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, polygon relations 9837027 and 10077625 edited in this change are not closed, so are invalid. Can you please review where they should go to be complete?Thanks,Mike |
| 80791447 by BracketC @ 2020-02-10 10:57 | 1 | 2020-02-11 23:55 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this way has access=designated which is an invalid value (only specific transport modes can use designated) and motor_vehicle=designated, which also seems to be incorrect. In the UK, designated is normally used for foot (public footpaths), bicycle (public cycleways) and horse (bridleways), and s... |
| 75625109 by The_JF @ 2019-10-13 14:10 | 1 | 2020-02-11 23:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 734168364 has motor_vehicle=*event which looks like it is an error. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 80433422 by paulbuk @ 2020-02-02 12:07 | 1 | 2020-02-10 13:47 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. Please note that we only use proper nouns in the name field. If these allotments have a name then by all means add it, but if you do not know the name of an object or it has no name, then please leave the name field blank. Happy mapping, Mike |
| 80649857 by Resident678 @ 2020-02-06 15:26 | 1 | 2020-02-10 13:44 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. Please note that to add a post box, you should use amenity=post_box rather than name=post box. You also need to show which side of the road it is on, rather than putting it in the middle of the road. Have fun mapping, Mike |
| 80711268 by lentinj @ 2020-02-07 22:39 | 1 | 2020-02-10 13:06 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see you have added access=private to a number of footways in this change. However, some of them have foot=yes, which overrides access=no. I think you intended to mark these are private for all access modes. Can you please remove foot=yes if these are now private (ways 37077790 and 277918574 ar... |
| 2 | 2020-02-10 21:36 | lentinj ♦2 | Correct, you're not wandering around the basin without knowing the keycode to the gate on the bridge. Have tidied up the tags now. Thanks! | |
| 80498070 by Mike Greenwood @ 2020-02-03 20:38 | 1 | 2020-02-10 11:44 | Mike Baggaley | HI Mike, welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point, please only use proper nouns for the names of objects. "Access to Canal towpath" is a description, not a name. If an object has no name, just leave it blank. Happy mapping,Mike |
| 80001364 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-24 01:19 | 1 | 2020-01-26 13:38 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,what does the tag 'fix bridge' mean? This is not used in any other place. |
| 2 | 2020-01-26 13:44 | Mike Baggaley | Oops, that was supposed to be in the change note, not added as a tag. I have now removed it. The change was to set bridge=yes instead of bridge=1. | |
| 79869596 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-21 17:43 | 1 | 2020-01-24 18:43 | Jebar ♦1 | Former Road, now with locked barriers at both ends, allowing access to pedestrians, horses, cycles etc. only |
| 2 | 2020-01-24 19:08 | Mike Baggaley | HI, welcome to OSM. I removed access=no because on highway=footway, this causes confusion as to whether or not it was intended to close the footpath completely. It is common for editors to add access=no to a footpath to indicate it has been closed, forgetting that any foot=yes will override it. If i... | |
| 79593290 by MacLondon @ 2020-01-15 05:36 | 1 | 2020-01-21 17:29 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, not sure where you got that recommendation from, but access=no denies pedestrians from access. I think either vehicle =no or motor_vehicle=no is much better, depending upon the signage. I have changed this to motor_vehicle=no. No entry signs, except for access signs, and bus only signs only appl... |
| 79530448 by DocDirk @ 2020-01-13 19:20 | 1 | 2020-01-14 12:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM. Just a quick note - if you add a footpath with highway=footway and set access=no and foot=yes, we don't know whether the path is intended to be accessible or not. A footway by default disallows all forms of transport other than walking, so it is only necessary to use the foo... |
| 79508218 by Hallamshire123 @ 2020-01-13 09:39 | 1 | 2020-01-14 12:22 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Phil, welcome to OSM. Just a quick note - please do not use descriptions for names of objects. Only proper nouns should be used in the name field. Happy mapping, Mike |
| 79485120 by TonyS999 @ 2020-01-12 19:17 | 1 | 2020-01-13 12:11 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Tony, hope you don't mind me contacting you, but I just wanted to let you know that to tag a crossing, you need to put highway=footway or path + footway or path=crossing, rather than highway=crossing. I've changed the 3 on Old Worden Ave to footway - feel free to change to path if you t... |
| 2 | 2020-01-13 16:29 | TonyS999 ♦17 | Thanks Mike. I knew the tagging looked different than usual - couldn't quite see what.CheersTony | |
| 79259617 by The_JF @ 2020-01-06 18:04 | 1 | 2020-01-08 09:52 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, when adding prow refs, please do not also add them in the name field, just use the prow_ref field. If a way has no name, just leave it blank.Thanks,Mike |
| 79133963 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-02 23:29 | 1 | 2020-01-05 11:07 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Hi, these changes have upset the OSL Musical Chairs tool, which now thinks that Red Pike Close and High Style Close don’t exist on OSM (but do exist in the OSL list). Is there anything which can be done about this to rectify the false positive in the tool? Thanks. |
| 2 | 2020-01-06 00:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I'm not familiar with that tool. I suggest the best bet it to get the tool modified so it understands the lifecycle prefixes. A quick look at the tool suggests that it has not been updated for several years (and hence predates lifecycle prefixes) and that the code also does not examine old_... | |
| 3 | 2020-01-16 00:57 | gurglypipe ♦872 | That makes sense. Looking into it more closely, it seems the OSL dataset was withdrawn in 2015, so the OSLMC tool is never going to be useful again until it’s updated to use the replacement OS Open Names dataset, and that’s too much of a change for me to tackle. :(https://wiki.openst... | |
| 78386517 by brianboru @ 2019-12-13 17:19 | 1 | 2020-01-02 13:20 | Mike Baggaley | HI Brian, in this change a number of ways have had access=no added, thereby denying pedestrian access. If they are public highways with bus only signs then pedestrian access should not be prohibited, and vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no is a better tag. Can you please review?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-01-02 14:27 | brianboru ♦158 | Sure thing I'll take a look shortly access restrictions always confuse the hell out of me | |
| 3 | 2020-01-02 19:29 | brianboru ♦158 | access=no is correct where indicated because although some of the roads are complete they are currently dead ends with temporary signage denying access. I'm there again on Tues next week will checkon current progress | |
| 4 | 2020-01-03 00:26 | Mike Baggaley | I came across this because way 421642407, 22323305, 755271061 and 4041104 have access=no, but have bicycle=yes and various other types of transport with yes values - these override access=no, so need to be deleted/changed if all access is prohibited. | |
| 70761211 by Max-- @ 2019-05-30 09:04 | 1 | 2020-01-02 22:54 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Max, can you please review way 693487564 created in this changeset - it has bridge=brownfield which looks like a mistake. Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-01-03 10:36 | Max-- ♦18 | Hi Mike,thanks for the heads up, no idea where that came from...I've fixed it to bridge=yes.Cheers,Max | |
| 77500833 by MacLondon @ 2019-11-25 05:52 | 1 | 2020-01-02 13:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Mac, in this changeset, a number of ways have had motor_vehicle=no changed to access=no, hence denying pedestrian access. Some of these look like public highways, so would appear to be incorrect. Is that what you intended? (A bus only sign does not imply access=no, it implies vehicle=no or motor_... |
| 78284412 by Mauls @ 2019-12-12 00:22 | 1 | 2020-01-01 20:35 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I've removed the landuse tags that were added to a couple of buildings in this changeset and replaced them with building:use. I believe that the landuse tag should only be used to tag an area that surrounds a building (or has no building at all), not the area of a building itself - the tag... |
| 79086061 by Mike Baggaley @ 2020-01-01 16:46 | 1 | 2020-01-01 17:51 | ndm ♦889 | Reverting this -- access was previously correct. |
| 2 | 2020-01-01 18:49 | Mike Baggaley | Previous access was incorrect. access=staff is not a recognised value - access=private is the correct value to use for staff access. access=delivery allows more access than private, so already covers the staff. | |
| 76840190 by Roofletch @ 2019-11-09 09:52 | 1 | 2020-01-01 18:01 | Mike Baggaley | HI, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please note that it is incorrect to use a description to name an object. Please only use proper nouns as names. If you do not know the name, please leave it blank.Happy mapping,Mike |
| 77494185 by dzidek23 @ 2019-11-24 22:23 | 1 | 2020-01-01 16:05 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I notice you have created a number of ways with access=designated (e.g. way 749292210-749292219. this is not a meaningful access statement as designated can only be used with a specific transport method (usually foot, bicycle or horse in the UK) and in the UK generally indicates the access is fr... |
| 2 | 2020-01-01 18:27 | dzidek23 ♦59 | Hello Mike,I hope my corrections are accurate and better represent the footpath. However, some of my edits were merely geometry changes and other tags came from previous changesets. | |
| 77466208 by johnmcr @ 2019-11-23 18:42 | 1 | 2019-12-30 00:50 | Mike Baggaley | HI, welcome to OpenStreetMap, just thought you might like to know that when mapping a stream going through a culvert under a road, this should be mapped by leaving the road as an unbroken way, and splitting the stream either side of the road and tagging the bit that goes under the road with tunnel=c... |
| 78932708 by xdq @ 2019-12-27 15:46 | 1 | 2019-12-30 00:33 | Mike Baggaley | HI, welcome to OpenStreetMap, just thought you need to know that when mapping a stream going through a culvert under a road, this should be mapped by leaving the road as an unbroken way, and splitting the stream either side of the road and tagging the bit that goes under the road with tunnel=culvert... |
| 2 | 2019-12-30 00:49 | xdq ♦1 | That makes sense, thanks! Dave :) | |
| 78983197 by Mike Baggaley @ 2019-12-29 16:21 | 1 | 2019-12-29 18:01 | will_p ♦148 | The public bookcase was still there when I walked by here a few weeks ago. Why have you deleted it? |
| 2 | 2019-12-29 18:19 | Mike Baggaley | It needs to be on a separate node than the bus stop. I have now added it in as a separate node. | |
| 3 | 2019-12-29 18:40 | will_p ♦148 | It's always better not to delete other mappers' contributions just because you disagree with the tagging. Either improve things or leave them as they are. | |
| 77348570 by ndm @ 2019-11-21 00:07 | 1 | 2019-12-29 14:45 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you please review the change you have made to way 84250952 in this changeset? It is tagged as a footpath over a bridge and has foot=yes. The change has added access=private, which causes confusion about whether there is is is not access for pedestrians. The ways either side of the bridge hav... |
| 2 | 2019-12-29 21:28 | ndm ♦889 | The access=private I added is correct -- I've removed the pre-existing tag that seems to confuse you. And added a note that access on the other bridge needs checking too.Basically, the area over the stream is supposed to be only for authorised personnel (as much as I can tell from seeing on... | |
| 3 | 2019-12-29 21:44 | ndm ♦889 | https://flic.kr/p/2i74dKt | |
| 77643798 by Netzwolf @ 2019-11-27 16:12 | 1 | 2019-12-29 00:14 | Mike Baggaley | I think your change of way 83637768 may be incorrect - access=private has been added but it has a local authority reference and also the Cape Wrath Trail running along it. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 77948562 by Don Dapper @ 2019-12-04 15:23 | 1 | 2019-12-29 00:09 | Mike Baggaley | HI, you have marked streets as access=private in this change, however, some of them have regional walking routes along them. Should the access be motor_vehicle=no or vehicle=no instead of access=no? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-12-29 17:58 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Mike, this area is available in Bing Streetside which we are allowed to use.I can see no evidence to support tagging these roads as private. In fact a right of way sign can be seen on Elstree Hill. The roads a unsurfaced which suggests Unadopted but access in OSM is legal, not ownership.Usin... | |
| 3 | 2020-01-03 15:36 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | I took a walk along nearby Hillbrow Road this afternoon, which was made "private" in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77948524 by Don Dapper. There is no evidence whatsoever at street level that Hillbrow Road is private and I would be unsurprised if Elstree Road etc. were verifiably... | |
| 4 | 2020-01-05 11:35 | rskedgell ♦1,467 | I've temporarily added foot=permissive to Elstree Hill as it is part of TfL's Green Chain Walk, hopefully this will repair pedestrian routing until evidence for access=private can be determined by a survey.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79209839 | |
| 78232019 by gomedia91 @ 2019-12-11 01:29 | 1 | 2019-12-28 18:26 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have downgraded Deer Park and Greenhill Road to tertiary, however they have a ref of A4139. If the ref is correct, please revert the highway to primary. If the road has indeed been downgraded and is no longer an A road, please remove the ref (or move it to old_ref).Thanks,... |
| 77510866 by Mapguy2 @ 2019-11-25 09:25 | 1 | 2019-12-28 17:31 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, following this change, way 731184298 (a short section of Corporation Street) now appears to allow access for motor vehicles and cycles, but denies pedestrians. If this is fully open, I suggest removing access=no, bicycle=yes and motor_vehicle=yes. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 75533777 by Bcc0rg @ 2019-10-10 20:56 | 1 | 2019-10-15 13:35 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. In this change you have incorrectly put the public right of way reference into the name field (it should go in the prow_ref field as specified in the UK tagging guidelines) and have also added access=no to a footway which also has foot=yes - this causes confusion as t... |
| 75368620 by richinm @ 2019-10-07 10:33 | 1 | 2019-10-13 09:59 | Mike Baggaley | Hi permissive_bridleway does not seem to be the right designation for way 730499073 if horse and foot are prohibited. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-10-14 07:50 | richinm ♦1 | Hi MikeYes you are correct I had noticed this and corrected it. It is a cycle path.Richard | |
| 3 | 2019-10-14 08:02 | Mike Baggaley | It still has designation=permissive_bridleway. | |
| 4 | 2019-10-14 08:13 | richinm ♦1 | Have you cleared your cache. Live it is showing as a blue peck cycle path. When I go into edit it is a cycle path. | |
| 5 | 2019-10-14 08:19 | Mike Baggaley | It has highway=cycleway and designation=permissive_bridleway. | |
| 6 | 2019-10-14 08:33 | richinm ♦1 | Thanks. Corrected | |
| 75396975 by eastender @ 2019-10-08 00:30 | 1 | 2019-10-13 09:11 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Manilla Street appears to have several cycling routes along it. Is it closed to all traffic or just to motor vehicles? Not sure why a construction site would have access=private on it. I suggest either access=no or motor_vehicle=no with a note saying closed for construction and ideally a project... |
| 2 | 2019-10-13 12:35 | eastender ♦34 | Thanks for the feedback. I have changed the access to access=no and added a note. The reality is that the street has been incorporated into the construction site and there are gates at each end of the street, It is therefore closed to the public and only construction vehicles are allowed through the... | |
| 71146759 by DLMatthews @ 2019-06-11 15:38 | 1 | 2019-10-11 14:56 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if Furnival Road and adjoining is no longer the B6073, can you please remove the ref? This change downgraded from secondary to tertiary but left the ref in place. Alternatively, if it is still a B road, please change the highway to secondary as per the UK tagging guidelines.Thanks,Mike... |
| 74915060 by PeterPan99 @ 2019-09-25 14:53 | 1 | 2019-10-11 14:49 | Mike Baggaley | There seems to be some confusion about Newport Road. It either needs to be primary with a ref of A5130, or if it is no longer the A5130, and has not been made a B road then it needs to be tertiary. Secondary with an A ref is definitely incorrect! Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-10-11 15:05 | PeterPan99 ♦43 | Thank for your helpful comment. Yes, I'll try to get down there in the next few days and check again what the signage says. From memory, I'm pretty certain that it is signed in Black lettering on a White background (which means Primary route, but NOT a Trunk Route, doesn't it?). I ... | |
| 3 | 2019-10-12 13:57 | PeterPan99 ♦43 | Thank you very much for drawing my attention to this error. I have now been on a trip along what used to be the A5130 and can confirm that it no longer has a Ref No. I will downgrade it to tertiary and remove the Ref (or change it to Old_Ref, as I see that some other sections have been). There ar... | |
| 74522895 by The_JF @ 2019-09-16 10:17 | 1 | 2019-09-23 22:52 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Winmore Way doesn't seem to me to be correctly tagged as a walking route, it just looks like the name of a road. I think the relation should be deleted. Can you please review or explain why you think it should be a route?Cheers,Mike |
| 74529191 by krd_mapper @ 2019-09-16 12:20 | 1 | 2019-09-23 22:26 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change a number of ways adjoining way 321544527 have been created with no pedestrian access - presumably using the access that was already on that way. However, there appears to be a regional walking route along them. Can you please review the access rights?Thanks,Mike |
| 70536914 by addatla @ 2019-05-23 04:33 | 1 | 2019-09-16 22:39 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this change disallows pedestrian access. Should it have motor_vehicle=no or vehicle=no rather than access=no?Cheers,Mike |
| 74338485 by unitedlocal @ 2019-09-11 07:04 | 1 | 2019-09-16 22:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, with this change Yelverton Road and Albert road are showing dead end one way for vehicles. Can you please review whether these are now two way or are pedestrianised?Thanks,Mike |
| 72799763 by Ian Glen @ 2019-07-30 08:13 | 1 | 2019-09-09 19:10 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Ian, hope you are enjoying mapping. I have noticed that you have tagged a number of bridges as bridge=culvert. Please note that a bridge cannot be a culvert; if a path or road crosses a waterway in a culvert then the waterway should be tagged tunnel=culvert, not the highway tagged as bridge=culve... |
| 2 | 2019-09-09 21:03 | Ian Glen ♦8 | Hi Mike:Aaarghhh!I've been editing Openstreetmap now for about 6 months or so and every now and again there's another Gotcha!!Some context. What I have been doing is walking a lot of paths in the Tendring area, to confirm their existence, and to update the metadata in openstreetm... | |
| 3 | 2019-09-09 21:25 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Ian, if the waterway goes into a culvert, instead of splitting the highway and adding a bridge segment, you need to split the waterway and add a tunnel=culvert segment instead. The highway need not be broken and there should be no joining node between the highway and waterway (unless there is a f... | |
| 4 | 2019-09-10 06:42 | Ian Glen ♦8 | Further to my earlier question, Mike. Using ID Editor, I split the footpath and in the radio buttons under Structure selected 'Bridge'. In the same section, there is a free entry field labelled 'Type'. Whether it defaulted to 'culvert' or whether I selected 'culv... | |
| 72727871 by MacLondon @ 2019-07-28 01:33 | 1 | 2019-09-09 13:47 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I am at a loss to understand why you have changed relation 7447034 to have not:network=lcn. Can you explain?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-09-09 15:20 | MacLondon ♦215 | Hi. Although this is a signed route=bicycle, based on Croydon's 2018 map at https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/articles/downloads/Croydon%20cycle%20route%20map.pdf, the 213 route is surprisingly not included as part of the local cycle network.As it was developed after the London... | |
| 3 | 2019-09-09 16:39 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks for the reply Mac. However, to me this seems to be wrongly tagged - network=lcn just means that the route is local, which it appears to be. The UK guidelines do not suggest that this tag should only be used for routes approved by a local council, and the guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetm... | |
| 73069870 by AdorHUN @ 2019-08-06 14:20 | 1 | 2019-09-09 14:20 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this change you have tagged a number of short sections of water as intermittent rivers. This does not seem to be correct - can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-09-20 07:36 | AdorHUN ♦2 | Hi!It would take long to trace them as areas, so i used them for the width. | |
| 74103819 by Mike Parfitt @ 2019-09-04 20:26 | 1 | 2019-09-09 13:38 | Mike Baggaley | HI, you have tagged way 722038311 as access=private, however, it has a walking route running along it. Did you intend vehicle=private? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-09-10 08:38 | Mike Parfitt ♦12 | Too far away to return just to read the sign, so changed access:private to vehicle:private in case these ways are still open access for hikers. | |
| 74007072 by another-dave @ 2019-09-02 16:27 | 1 | 2019-09-05 23:05 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are you sure you have this in the right place? There appears to be another post office shown 2 blocks north on the corner of Mortimer Street and Great Portland Street which is named as Great Portland Street Post Office. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-09-06 08:21 | another-dave ♦1 | Hi Mike,sorry I think you're right, I got the corner mixed up — do I need to revert the change or will it be discarded? Sorry, not sure if requests come through as 'pending' from Maps.ME or if they get auto-added.ThanksDave | |
| 3 | 2019-09-06 08:26 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, It had been added, but following your update, I've removed it.Cheers,Mike | |
| 4 | 2019-09-06 08:32 | another-dave ♦1 | OK cool, thanks Mike — next time I'll a) double-check it and b) tidy up after myself! :) ThanksDave | |
| 73972782 by AvianLyric @ 2019-09-01 13:13 | 1 | 2019-09-05 16:28 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you please review the tags on way 202545190 changed under this changeset? Is has had access=no and construction=footpath, however it also has highway=footway and bicycle=yes. If this is under construction and there is no access, please remove the highway and bicycle tags and change construct... |
| 2 | 2019-09-05 16:33 | AvianLyric ♦1 | Yup, just updated the tags | |
| 73982490 by tom81237 @ 2019-09-01 21:12 | 1 | 2019-09-05 16:23 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 24944709 (Lower Promenade footway) this change has removed foot=yes but left access=no and psv=yes. This seems an odd combination. Did you intend to remove the psv tag rather than the foot one? It also has a cycling route running along it, but no access. Can you please review?Cheers,\... |
| 72746255 by John! @ 2019-07-28 19:57 | 1 | 2019-08-30 06:47 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see you have added several names of the form SR<number> are these footpath numbers? If so, they should go in prow_ref, rather than the name field. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref . Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 73213030 by Sam888 @ 2019-08-10 05:28 | 1 | 2019-08-27 23:10 | Mike Baggaley | HI I see you have downgraded ways 30806122 and 30806126 to tertiary, however these have a ref of A52 on them. If they are still A roads, please change them back to primary. If they are no longer part of the A52, please remove the ref. You can find the UK road tagging guidelines at https://wiki.open... |
| 2 | 2019-08-31 16:01 | Sam888 ♦2 | Those A52 refs seem to have been leftover from previous edits, I missed them earlier. As far as I know that road has never been part of the A52. I've now removed all the ones I've spotted. | |
| 3 | 2019-09-01 20:15 | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦70,576 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 73981417 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some licence-incompatible changes in the UK. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73168327 for details. | |
| 4 | 2019-09-01 22:14 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | I've reapplied the rogue "ref=A52" removals (and some others) in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73982785 . | |
| 72112990 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-07-10 22:21 | 1 | 2019-08-26 13:25 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Robert, in this changeset you have way 703228515 with designation=public_footpath, foot=no and bicycle=yes, which looks like an error. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-08-26 20:11 | Robert Whittaker ♦273 | I'm afraid I can't shed any light on it, as the tags were already there before this. In my changeset I created https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703228515 from a spit of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105885027 . Looking at the history of that way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10588... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-26 22:15 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks Robert, I have updated the foot access to designated, based on the assumption that it is incorrect and also changed a couple of highways to be driveways based on Bing and what seems logical. Feel free to change if you think I have it wrong. | |
| 65203722 by Mauls @ 2018-12-05 13:25 | 1 | 2019-05-22 07:10 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is "Whitchurch & Aberystwyth" the name of the road on way 652521735 and adjoining, or is it the name of the abandoned railway? If the latter, I think the name should be in the old_name field.Cheers,Mike |
| 67501719 by ian gocarz @ 2019-02-23 19:44 | 1 | 2019-04-13 22:43 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you have tagged this as a pedestrian area, but it appears to have several bus routes running along it. If the bus routes are correct, it cannot be a pedestrian area. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 68191208 by DorsetJon @ 2019-03-15 22:18 | 1 | 2019-04-13 22:26 | Mike Baggaley | Hi on way 299346168 you have added the public footpath details, however, this was closed due to a landslip when I walked it a couple of years ago. Is it now reopened?Cheers,Mike |
| 69013196 by sobbomapper @ 2019-04-08 16:12 | 1 | 2019-04-13 22:24 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have added designation=public_footpath and foot=designated to 2 ways, but on way 26812012 you have added designation=public_footpath and foot=no. Is this a mistake? If not can you add a note indicating why pedestrians are not allowed on the public footpath?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-04-14 11:30 | sobbomapper ♦3 | Oops - simple error, now corrected. Good to know someone checks this stuff!cheers, Martyn (sobbomapper) | |
| 67460187 by Julian Cox @ 2019-02-22 10:08 | 1 | 2019-04-11 07:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have allow bicycle access, but not mentioned pedestrian access. It is unusual for cycling but not pedestrian access to be allowed. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-04-11 09:38 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | It is also a bit unusual to have a designation of public footpath and for cycling to be allowed. Is it maybe a bridleway?Cheers Phil | |
| 68308385 by MacLondon @ 2019-03-19 19:30 | 1 | 2019-04-11 07:04 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 130438810, you have changed the access to deny pedestrian and bicycle access to the road. Whilst there is an adjacent cycleway, unless there is a prohibition sign for cycles and pedestrians on the roadway, it is legal for them to use the roadway. If there is a prohibition sign, I suggest ... |
| 2 | 2019-04-11 15:13 | MacLondon ♦215 | Hi Mike, I've now added foot=use_sidepath for pedestrians along this busway.The signed access restriction is 'local bus only' for this road, so bicycles are not allowed to use the road.Although there are also reinforcement signs further along the road (with pictures of motor v... | |
| 67408735 by harg @ 2019-02-20 21:40 | 1 | 2019-02-22 15:10 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 50748230 you have added landuse=depot to building=yes. The landuse tag is intended to be used for the area surrounding buildings, not on buildings themselves. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-02-22 16:19 | harg ♦23 | I've moved it to the area instead of the building. That ought to work. | |
| 67383806 by Frempt @ 2019-02-20 09:19 | 1 | 2019-02-22 15:05 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map, a bit more feedback for you: please avoid using descriptive text as the name tag (in this case "Car Park") We know it is a car park from the amenity=parking tag. If a feature doesn't have a name or you don't know what it is, just leave the name tag... |
| 67351640 by iwhs @ 2019-02-19 12:48 | 1 | 2019-02-22 14:53 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 305557623 you have added bicycle=evenings. I think this would be better specified using bicycle=no and bicycle:conditional=yes@<open_hours> where the value for <open_hours> is as described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours .Can you please review?Than... |
| 2 | 2019-02-24 16:25 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | I would also suspect that motor_vehicle=no is unlikely. It is more common that deliveries are allowed to shops during certain hours. While I know you did not add this, maybe you could check the signs. If you need tagging help just ask.Cheers Phil | |
| 3 | 2019-02-25 10:15 | iwhs ♦20 | I have removed 'bicycle=evenings' as I originally put it there as a marker for future expansion... I won't be back in Fareham for a while, so will leave this for others! Also the 'motor_vehicle=no' (not my addition) will require a survey. ~Mike. | |
| 67208981 by Rallyer228 @ 2019-02-14 21:58 | 1 | 2019-02-22 14:44 | Mike Baggaley | Hi welcome to open Street Map. Hope you don't mind me pointing a couple of points to note. When adding a footpath, the ends of it needs to connect to the highway, otherwise it looks nice but is considered to be unconnected and hence no route finding can use it. Also, if you add a highway of typ... |
| 67356119 by BluesBrothers @ 2019-02-19 14:55 | 1 | 2019-02-22 13:29 | Mike Baggaley | HI, please do not use descriptions such as "Morrisons car park access" as the name tag. If a road has no name then the name tag should be left blank.Cheers,Mike |
| 66992614 by TJS @ 2019-02-07 12:17 | 1 | 2019-02-14 13:11 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please only put proper nouns into the name tag - if you do not know the full name of the feature, please leave the name field blank.Thanks,Mike |
| 66973428 by AndyDrew @ 2019-02-06 19:01 | 1 | 2019-02-14 12:42 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this way has access=no and foot=yes, so it is unclear whether it is now open. Can you please review, removing either the access or the foot tag?Thanks,Mike |
| 66960998 by kevjs1982 @ 2019-02-06 11:28 | 1 | 2019-02-14 10:20 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you have added access=private to various footways in this change. However, they already have foot=yes, which means the access=no has no effect other than to cause confusion. From your comment I suspect you mean that all access is private, in which case foot=yes needs to be removed. Can you pleas... |
| 67163482 by kevjs1982 @ 2019-02-13 13:40 | 1 | 2019-02-14 10:16 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on footways 112979820 and 112979821 you have added access=no in this change. However, they already have foot=yes, which means the access=no has no effect other than to cause confusion. If you mean that there is no public access, I suggest removing foot=yes and setting access=private. If the path... |
| 66999250 by RAIDfire @ 2019-02-07 16:03 | 1 | 2019-02-13 13:40 | Mike Baggaley | Hi please note that bridge=culvert is not valid. This either needs to be bridge=yes on the footpath, or tunnel=culvert on the stream. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-02-13 14:53 | RAIDfire ♦2 | Hi, Thanks for pointing that out, I'd not thought about that. I think it's fixed now. | |
| 66014724 by MapperTwo @ 2019-01-04 09:18 | 1 | 2019-02-03 14:20 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if possible can you add a religion tag to St John's Street Gospel Hall?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-02-04 07:17 | MapperTwo ♦7 | Hi, If I remember next time I'm passing I'll pay a bit more attention. | |
| 66532128 by southglos @ 2019-01-22 10:00 | 1 | 2019-02-02 10:06 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, having read the source link, I think these restrictions would be better tagged as motor_vehicle=no rather than access=no as there does not seem to be an intention to completely close the roads. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-02-02 12:20 | southglos ♦120 | Agree it's a temporary experiment and isn't a blanket closure, but the restriction does seem to be you-can't-go-down-this-road-unless-you're-one-of-these, so to my mind, that's access=no overridden by exceptions (bicycle=yes, psv=yes etc)A good mental test is a horse+car... | |
| 3 | 2019-02-02 12:38 | southglos ♦120 | Oh, to add: I've not been past the area since the restrictions came into effect, so obviously an on-the-ground survey trumps all.I'd suggest if it's signed as no-entry-except, or blue something-only signs it should be access=no plus exceptions; if it's signed no-motor-vehicl... | |
| 4 | 2019-02-02 12:45 | southglos ♦120 | And a survey is definitely needed to figure out what's happened to adjoining roads - we've now got several one-ways into or out of effective dead ends, which can't be right :-) | |
| 5 | 2019-02-02 14:20 | Mike Baggaley | What I was getting at was that if there is a no entry sign, this only applies to vehicular traffic. Hence vehicle=no is the best tag. For "except for access" signs, these only apply to motor vehicles, so motor_vehicle=destination is the best tag. It is very common for people to see a no en... | |
| 6 | 2019-02-02 15:39 | southglos ♦120 | Indeed; hence foot=yes on all of these, except yes, I missed out Clarence Parade. I've put that in now, so pedestrian and bicycle routing should all be correct.Agree vehicle=no would do the job too, except possibly for the question of horses. (vehicle=no is functionally equivalent to acce... | |
| 7 | 2019-02-02 15:45 | southglos ♦120 | Have found some news pictures of the signage - they are indeed marked as no-motor-vehicles-except rather than no-entry-except, so will update tagging accordingly. | |
| 66543430 by Steve Chilton @ 2019-01-22 16:42 | 1 | 2019-02-02 12:02 | Mike Baggaley | HI way 90692448 you have tagged as a place of worship (St Lukes), but I think it might be a parish/church hall. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 66530985 by John Stanworth @ 2019-01-22 09:17 | 1 | 2019-02-02 11:29 | Mike Baggaley | HI John, on way 664451954 you have added designation=public_footpath but it also has foot=no. Can you please review the access?Thanks,Mike |
| 66778683 by MacLondon @ 2019-01-30 18:00 | 1 | 2019-02-02 10:10 | Mike Baggaley | Hi on way 8131752 you have changed the ref from A205 to proposed. Is this what you intended (it doesn't seem like a tag where proposed would be used)?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-02-02 17:49 | MacLondon ♦215 | You're right, Mike, it was not as intended. I've corrected it now on this and 2 adjacent ways.Thanks,Mac | |
| 65736633 by Mauls @ 2018-12-24 10:51 | 1 | 2019-02-01 17:08 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see you have added landuse=retail to the Screwfix building which has building=yes. I think that the landuse tag should only be used for a surrounding area, rather than on a building itself. To tag the building as being retail, it is best to use building=retail.Cheers,Mike |
| 66178654 by theid @ 2019-01-09 23:59 | 1 | 2019-01-22 00:57 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 419755055 you have added foot=yes, but access was set to no with a note saying the path was inaccessible. If it is now open, can you please remove the access and note tags? If it is closed, please remove the foot tag.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-02-03 00:14 | theid ♦1 | I will try to survey in the next few weeks to see if this is still physically inaccessible.RegardsTodd | |
| 66202748 by TekkyTom @ 2019-01-10 17:16 | 1 | 2019-01-22 00:54 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you please review the access you have set on way 38499561, which doesn't seem to make sense to me?Thanks,Mike |
| 66159971 by DaveyPorcy @ 2019-01-09 12:16 | 1 | 2019-01-22 00:50 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, are you sure these ways are not tracks? I am not local, but the bing satellite view for several of them look like tracks to me. Please note that footway is intended for a narrow path that is not navigable by a vehicle. A track is a a way that is big enough for a vehicle to travel along (e.g... |
| 66245604 by WalthamCity @ 2019-01-12 08:01 | 1 | 2019-01-21 23:53 | Mike Baggaley | If these sections of Judd Street are no longer part of the B504, can you please remove the ref. If they are still part of the B504, please revert the highway to secondary as per the UK tagging guidelines.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-01-22 09:01 | WalthamCity ♦16 | Hi Mike,This is a good point. I’ve edited this based on what I see on the ground. I am not connected to officialdom and have no way to check whether the B road has been declassified or diverted. I suspect it has not, which is why I didn’t change the tag. There are more and more se... | |
| 66109004 by Mike Baggaley @ 2019-01-07 20:42 | 1 | 2019-01-07 22:15 | ndm ♦889 | I surveyed this - why has it been moved? |
| 2 | 2019-01-07 23:05 | Mike Baggaley | Apologies, your edit seemed to imply you had turned the node into a shop (shop=yes was added). It is quite common for naptan imported bus stops to get hijacked and merged with other items which have the same or similar names (e.g. a stop named Post Office will be moved and amenity=post_office added)... | |
| 3 | 2019-01-07 23:24 | ndm ♦889 | Oh bother, that means the "shelter=yes" I meant to add didn't make it :-) | |
| 65642052 by motogs @ 2018-12-20 14:29 | 1 | 2019-01-07 18:37 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I note that your comment says change access to foot=yes, but you have actually changed several to access=foot instead (which is incorrect). I have changed them as per your comment.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-01-08 12:50 | Rob- ♦2 | Thanks for doing that Mike, and for letting me know. I'll have to be more careful in future, especially when changing someone else's tagging! | |
| 65537996 by MacLondon @ 2018-12-17 04:46 | 1 | 2019-01-07 17:50 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this edit two bicycle routes, relations 9114441 and 9114443 have been added. These have no names and no details. Did you intend these to be part of some other route?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-01-29 18:01 | MacLondon ♦215 | Sorry for the long delay in replying, Mike.I doubt these routes have names unlike e.g. the old named "quiet routes" in Waltham Forest. Both are shown in grey on https://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Mini-Holland-Overview-Maps-v26.jpgThe newer local network... | |
| 65864748 by James Derrick @ 2018-12-29 13:15 | 1 | 2019-01-07 16:13 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you p[lease review way 659069219 which is tagged as being a public footpath, allowing access for bicycles, but not pedestrians? (I suggest removing the access=no tag.)Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-01-08 09:11 | James Derrick ♦78 | Hi Mike,This footpath has apparently been closed due to building works adjacent, with a diversionary path created nearby (note included on Way: 659069221). I couldn't see NCC PROW notices here (unlike the W-E section) so have not added lawfully diverted.My thought was access=no would over... | |
| 65314007 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-12-09 12:49 | 1 | 2018-12-09 14:45 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | You should really have moved the "catholic" value to the denomination tag instead of removing it. |
| 2 | 2018-12-09 14:55 | Mike Baggaley | Catholic seemed like it would probably be incorrect for denomination as well as for religion - most UK 'catholic' churches should be tagged roman_catholic, not catholic. Didn't know which was correct for this one, so left blank. | |
| 65214153 by Baines_1004 @ 2018-12-05 18:37 | 1 | 2018-12-07 19:48 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is the building at way 652919377, created in this changeset really called "Residential area"? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 65016351 by Pete Owens @ 2018-11-29 16:31 | 1 | 2018-12-07 18:24 | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 25382675 you have downgraded from secondary to tertiary in this change. However, it has a ref of B6236 on it. If the ref is incorrect, can you please remove it? If the ref is correct, please revert the highway to secondary, so it complies with the UK tagging guidelines.Thanks,Mike |
| 64675290 by Map_up_Suffolk @ 2018-11-19 23:18 | 1 | 2018-11-21 12:07 | Mike Baggaley | HI on way 646600716 added in this change, you have set highway-track and access=designated. The latter is not a valid value for access, as it should only be applied to specific transport types such as foot=-designated - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:access%3Ddesignated . Can you ple... |
| 2 | 2018-11-22 13:27 | Map_up_Suffolk ♦1 | Hi Mike, I have now removed the designation,Thanks for bringing this error to my attention,Max | |
| 64362210 by JayCBR @ 2018-11-10 21:18 | 1 | 2018-11-14 21:05 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Hello,You've changed the East Lancashire Road from a primary to a trunk at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/627747425/history - are you sure that's correct? It's a while since I've been there but I didn't think it was a trunk (green signs) rather than primary (white sign... |
| 2 | 2018-11-14 21:56 | JayCBR ♦39 | every sign i ve seen is green, sabre has it as primary..and common sense, its a major road, i see no reason that section not to be primarybest regardsJ | |
| 3 | 2018-11-14 23:19 | lakedistrict ♦308 | These Mapillary images were taken in July this year and both show green signs: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/VLPqbORH-pV3z7yyD1MBhQ and https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/-TqGlo7Kzu3Pq96d-QNGAg | |
| 4 | 2018-11-14 23:30 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Actually - my mistake - that's a different bit of the East Lancs Road to what I was thinking of (you haven't modified the bit I was thinking of at all) | |
| 5 | 2018-11-18 23:21 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this change, New Bridge Street and part of Greengate have been changed from secondary to tertiary, but they also have ref B6182. If this is no longer the B6182, please remove the ref. If it is still the B6182, please revert the highway to secondary as per the UK tagging guidelines at https://... | |
| 64529297 by Local Mapper @ 2018-11-15 13:27 | 1 | 2018-11-18 21:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see that a new A45 has been created and the old one has been downgraded to secondary. Can you add its new B road ref to the old A45 as appropriate and move A45 to old_ref?Thanks,Mike |
| 64202234 by RaccoonFederation @ 2018-11-05 15:53 | 1 | 2018-11-06 19:41 | Mike Baggaley | HI way 202388327 in Morrisons has had access=no added, but it still has bicycle=yes. I assume either that both pedestrians and bicycles are allowed, or both are not, but the current tags deny pedestrians and allow bicycles. Can you please review? Thanks,Mike |
| 63897181 by Justin Jolly Samuel @ 2018-10-26 11:32 | 1 | 2018-11-01 13:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this seems to be more like a description rather than a name. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-11-05 10:04 | Justin Jolly Samuel ♦1 | Thanks. i will change it to just "Westmoreland Court Road" | |
| 3 | 2018-11-05 16:04 | Mike Baggaley | Please also review the access conditions, as the combination doesn't make sense. Cheers,Mike | |
| 64074784 by mcchet @ 2018-11-01 11:19 | 1 | 2018-11-05 16:01 | Mike Baggaley | HI on way 128218876, this change has removed pedestrian and bicycle access, but national cycle route 46 is shown as running along it. Did you intend motor_vehicle=private rather than access=private? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-11-05 16:10 | mcchet ♦1 | Thanks. Now adjusted to be the same as the section to the east. | |
| 64169915 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-11-04 15:55 | 1 | 2018-11-04 17:10 | will_p ♦148 | Are you sure this change is correct? Most spiritualist churches don't consider themselves to be Christian, but a separate religion. This certainly applies to churches affiliated with the Spiritualists' National Union, which is the most common type.Regards,Will |
| 2 | 2018-11-04 18:02 | Mike Baggaley | Apologies, you are quite correct. A mix up on my part. I have corrected. | |
| 63927559 by hofoen @ 2018-10-27 12:59 | 1 | 2018-11-01 15:59 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, your note suggests that this is a historic site. Please note that amenity=place_of_worship is meant for places that are currently used for worship. If Free Church is no longer used for worship, I suggest using building=church instead of amenity=place_of_worship. Can you please review this and wa... |
| 2 | 2018-11-03 17:26 | hofoen ♦56 | Thanks for advice. I've added a life time cycle prefix. | |
| 63957107 by Richard @ 2018-10-28 18:22 | 1 | 2018-11-01 14:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see that ways 367734432, 367734524 and 367734718 along which the Glyndwr's Way is now tagged as running have access=private. Can you please review the access on these ways?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-11-01 14:19 | Richard ♦220 | As the changeset says, I was working from a previously uploaded GPS trace (not mine) but no doubt someone local can review - I'd suggest you add notes to that effect. | |
| 3 | 2018-11-01 14:32 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks for the reply - I've added fixme tags to the ways. | |
| 63971743 by N1ck200 @ 2018-10-29 09:46 | 1 | 2018-11-01 14:08 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if you have a bridleway or public footpath number, please note that in the UK this should go in the prow_ref field, not the name or alt_name field.Cheers,Mike |
| 63983688 by edisg @ 2018-10-29 16:20 | 1 | 2018-11-01 13:58 | Mike Baggaley | HI, Bus Waitstation seems to be more like a description than a name. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-11-01 14:12 | edisg ♦1 | Hi Mike, thanks for the tip!I just used the existing name for the bus station name which runs parallel to it. In fact, the line is a copy-paste of the existing one which I just adjusted to make it correct.I don't actually think the bus station paths are named; they don't even show ... | |
| 63206426 by ndm @ 2018-10-04 18:50 | 1 | 2018-10-18 16:17 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, pedestrian exclusion on a road requires a specific no pedestrians sign. I'm not local, so can't be sure whether there is a red no pedestrians sign, but if it only has a blue sign indicating certain vehicle types, this does not exclude pedestrians. It seems unlikely that this road would... |
| 2 | 2018-10-18 20:26 | ndm ♦889 | Pedestrian crossing is on the adjacent separated footpath as marked on the map. | |
| 3 | 2018-10-24 12:10 | Mike Baggaley | The point is, that unless there is an explicit prohibition, it is perfectly legal to walk in the road or a cycleway. The map should show what is legal, not what is recommended. | |
| 4 | 2018-10-25 11:58 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Mapillary image here https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Z8MvACDaZN5PPAnljfVOOA | |
| 63808216 by Allchin @ 2018-10-23 19:23 | 1 | 2018-10-24 12:02 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on ways 637278515, 637113285 and 637278514 access=public has been set. This is not a recognised value. If your intention it to indicate that it is a public right of way, please use foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 63710568 by cryptickryptos @ 2018-10-20 18:03 | 1 | 2018-10-23 19:07 | Mike Baggaley | HI can you please review the tag access=visitors on the car park and associated service roads at Backwell Reserve? If anyone can visit the reserve, but can only use the car park to visit the reserve, I suggest replacing access=visitors with motor_vehicle=destination. Note, using the access tag inste... |
| 2 | 2018-10-23 20:56 | cryptickryptos ♦33 | ok, i changed it to motor_vehicle=destination | |
| 63738399 by UniEagle @ 2018-10-21 21:01 | 1 | 2018-10-23 18:59 | Mike Baggaley | HI, if way 372717621 is now open, please remove access=no, if it is still closed, please remove foot=designated. We cannot tell from the tagging whether this path is open or not.Thanks,Mike |
| 63736066 by Joe E @ 2018-10-21 19:04 | 1 | 2018-10-23 18:56 | Mike Baggaley | HI the combination of access=no + foot=permissive is causing confusion as to whether or not pedestrian access is permitted because a footway by default only allows pedestrian access, so providing values for both access and foot leads to confusion as to whether the mapper has erroneously tried to pro... |
| 63553160 by Denys @ 2018-10-15 19:03 | 1 | 2018-10-21 08:08 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 634358414 access=designated has been set. This is not a valid value - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated . Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-10-22 10:02 | Denys ♦3 | Hi, I have checked the changeset. It looks like a bit of way history got lost: I haven't created way 634358414 from scratch, I split way 171207874 into two parts and the tag was inherited from parent. I will join this way with another relevant way and will remove the tag.RegardsDenys | |
| 63228576 by smeòrach @ 2018-10-05 12:07 | 1 | 2018-10-20 06:37 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note that Formartine and Buchan Way is the name of a route and should not be added to the individual ways making up the route. There is already a route with this name attached to these ways. I have removed the name from the ways. You can see the routes at waymarkedtrails.org, which uses t... |
| 63263809 by RaccoonFederation @ 2018-10-06 18:49 | 1 | 2018-10-19 08:49 | Mike Baggaley | How much the road is used is irrelevant to the classification. In the UK If it has a ref beginning with an A , it is either a primary or trunk. If it is a B road, it is secondary. Please see the UK tagging guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines .If th... |
| 2 | 2018-10-19 09:30 | RaccoonFederation ♦96 | I believe the road classification has changed and have contaced the local council to confirm it's new classification. | |
| 61863943 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-08-21 17:47 | 1 | 2018-10-04 16:06 | iccaldwell ♦24 | This path is closed due to construction. This was discussed on talk-gb at the end of July |
| 2 | 2018-10-04 16:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please note that when a footway is closed, it is no use setting access=no and foot=yes, as foot=yes overrides access=no. I will update appropriately. | |
| 63131743 by Pete Owens @ 2018-10-02 17:40 | 1 | 2018-10-03 13:17 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this change around 30 ways that are part of the A40 have had bicycle=yes added. However, they also have motorroad=yes which indicates that bicycles and pedestrians are not allowed. Does the motorroad tag need to be removed? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-10-03 21:09 | Pete Owens ♦55 | Whatever a "motorroad" is cycling is permitted on this stretch of the oxford bypass - so it can't be one. Cycling is prohibited on part of the eastern bypass. | |
| 63068382 by andy mackey @ 2018-09-30 16:08 | 1 | 2018-10-03 13:11 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Andy, this changeset has changed way 65999899 to have access=designated, which is an invalid value (designated should only be applied to specific access types such as foot). I think this way might be better with the access tag removed and motor_vehicle added as appropriate. Can you please review... |
| 63074989 by h2g2bob @ 2018-09-30 20:18 | 1 | 2018-10-03 13:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please clarify whether way 629287081 is accessible to pedestrians? The way has access=no and foot=yes, which is confusing and actually means pedestrians are allowed. However, the note suggests there should be no access. Can you please remove either foot=yes or access=no?Thanks,Mike |
| 62963410 by mohapd @ 2018-09-27 03:15 | 1 | 2018-09-29 09:37 | Mike Baggaley | HI, this change has set access=no, but it has several cycle routes along it. Should it be motor_vehicle=no instead of access=no? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-10-03 17:25 | charabor ♦6 | Hi Mike,Thanks for the update. Yes, the road should have access for cycles as per preceding and succeeding segments. Edits have been made as per your recommendation. Thank you for spending your valuable time to help us.Please let us know if you have any recommendations or suggestions. We are... | |
| 62758566 by pjstewart1984 @ 2018-09-20 10:52 | 1 | 2018-09-28 13:39 | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 477558268 has been marked as private, but has the coastal path running along it. Should it be motor_vehicle=private instead of access=private?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-09-29 17:04 | pjstewart1984 ♦3 | Hi Mike,Good shout. I didn't consider the implications of access=private for the BCP. I'm making the change right now.Best,Paul | |
| 62509212 by brianboru @ 2018-09-12 06:18 | 1 | 2018-09-13 13:42 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 30955837 you have set access=no. This means there is no pedestrian access, which seems unlikely to me. Did you intend motor_vehicle=no? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-09-14 08:59 | brianboru ♦158 | Thanks Mike - access restriction for all classes now explicitly tagged. I've also added a note to all roads affected stating the likely length of closure and the reasonBrian | |
| 16656628 by Boothy99 @ 2013-06-22 13:44 | 1 | 2018-09-12 14:13 | Mike Baggaley | HI, some time ago you set bridge=culvert on way 30408038, which is a stream. Did you intend this to be tunnel=culvert?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-09-13 07:57 | Boothy99 ♦6 | Hi Mike.I'm currently away on holiday, so working this out on my phone is proving difficult :-\\ My intention was to mark a bridge "over" a stream, so I'd be more than pleased if you could correct this for me, otherwise I'll check it in my return.Thanks for checking o... | |
| 62452248 by andrum99 @ 2018-09-10 12:24 | 1 | 2018-09-12 14:06 | Mike Baggaley | Please do not make up names so that they appear on the standard rendered map. Please either find out its proper name, or leave it blank if it has no name or you cannot find it.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-09-12 15:25 | andrum99 ♦24 | Apologies - I spotted that someone had added 'sandpit' as a name on something at nearby Auchmuty High School and assumed it was therefore OK to do it that way. I will be more careful in future. I've also added 'tennis courts' as the name of the school's tennis courts - ... | |
| 3 | 2018-09-15 20:04 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | The convention seems to be to add the name to the bowling green (see examples in Edinburgh) | |
| 62410686 by Allchin @ 2018-09-08 20:04 | 1 | 2018-09-12 13:56 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the newly created ways 624125033 and 623069248 have highway=footway with access=private and foot=designated. This is causing confusion as to whether pedestrians are allowed or prohibited. If they are public footpaths, please remove access=private; if they are private, please remove foot=designat... |
| 62370576 by Marphilin @ 2018-09-07 10:22 | 1 | 2018-09-12 13:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this footpath is private, you need to remove foot=designated, which indicates it is a public footpath.Can you please review? |
| 2 | 2018-09-12 16:26 | Marphilin ♦1 | I corrected foot=designated | |
| 62291613 by ◪ Jarv @ 2018-09-04 20:42 | 1 | 2018-09-12 13:29 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Thomas, in this change a number of roads with ref=A600 have been set to highway=secondary. If the road has been downgraded, please update the ref with the B road number. If is is still the A600, please revert the highway to secondary. Roads with an A ref should be tagged as trunk or primary - ple... |
| 62426467 by Curran1980 @ 2018-09-09 14:29 | 1 | 2018-09-12 13:22 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset you seem to have set a number of ways around way 624226180 to access=no with psv=yes and bicycle=yes. I suspect that the prohibition should be motor_vehicle=no rather than access=no, as the latter prohibits pedestrians. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 62500795 by mrpacmanmap @ 2018-09-11 20:03 | 1 | 2018-09-12 13:05 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you appear to have set a number of segments of highway that have ref B4587 and B4171 to primary. Please either update the ref if these are now A roads, or revert the highway type back to secondary if the refs are correct. A roads in the UK should be tagged as trunk or primary - pl... |
| 62187781 by ianc @ 2018-09-01 00:23 | 1 | 2018-09-03 14:23 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Ian, on several of the ways edited in this change, you have set access=designated. This is not a valid value - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated . Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-09-07 00:33 | ianc ♦16 | Hmmm. Not sure how that happened. I think it may be that some of them are BOATs rather than just public footpaths or bridleways and Go Map didn't handle it very elegantly. Shall check when I get a mo. | |
| 62193930 by Eulachon @ 2018-09-01 10:00 | 1 | 2018-09-03 13:43 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify why you have added access=no to this footpath? Has the path been closed (in which case you need to remove foot=yes)? The combination of access=no and foot=yes is causing confusion as to whether the footpath is open or not.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-09-03 20:10 | Eulachon ♦1 | Thanks for your input - the only clarification I can give is - it's been a mistake. I hope I correctet it properly and didn't cause more confusion. | |
| 62192295 by Sylaco @ 2018-09-01 08:17 | 1 | 2018-09-03 13:16 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if C5K and U62K are highway references, they should not go in the name field. Recent talk-GB discussions suggest that we use highway_authority_ref for references that are not signed, however, this has not yet been documented in the wiki pages. If you do use this field then if it is decided to ch... |
| 44790835 by Philip Shore @ 2016-12-30 18:01 | 1 | 2018-08-28 14:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Philip, do you know whether the bridge at way 49706027 has been repaired?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-08-28 19:29 | Philip Shore ♦2 | Hi Mike,Sorry, I'm not from that area and it was a one off trip. It will probably be on a local newspaper website if reopened, have a Google for it.Regards,Phil. | |
| 41914293 by Chris Dennis @ 2016-09-04 18:42 | 1 | 2018-08-28 08:07 | Mike Baggaley | Is this bridge now open? |
| 61683269 by Allchin @ 2018-08-15 11:55 | 1 | 2018-08-26 15:03 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 617168045 and 617168046 you have set access=public. If you mean them to be public footpaths, please use foot=designated and designation=public_footpath instead. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 61540556 by MBNRMap @ 2018-08-10 14:24 | 1 | 2018-08-26 13:42 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on footway 615868643 you have set access=private + foot=permissive which leads to confusion about what the access is. Can you please remove one of the two access statements?Thanks,Mike |
| 61803154 by chippy @ 2018-08-19 20:12 | 1 | 2018-08-21 17:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review the access on way 122047898? You have set foot=permissive, but bicycle and horse are set to yes, which seems like an unlikely combination.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-08-21 19:00 | chippy ♦8 | It was mis tagged as a track where it is more likely a footpath, at least to the north where I walked. n yorks prow show it as permissive and not a designated footpath. I don't know about horse or bicycle, but this whole area is part of Open Access land on the moor, so I imagine they can go on ... | |
| 3 | 2018-08-21 19:01 | chippy ♦8 | I'm not sure why the way has an access=no tag though | |
| 4 | 2018-08-22 14:40 | chippy ♦8 | https://i.imgur.com/JhGz6MF.png shows the PROW data (OGL license) over OSM basemap. This path is not in the PROW as a bridleway nor a footpath. There is a bridleway to the north, before the junction, and along the track too. I shall add this. So much of it appears to be a permissive right of way, a... | |
| 5 | 2018-08-26 13:08 | Mike Baggaley | I have removed the access=no tag. It might need horse=permissive adding and bicycle also changing to permissive. | |
| 58255627 by Matt Le Maitre @ 2018-04-20 07:59 | 1 | 2018-08-26 11:07 | Mike Baggaley | HI, is Access Road really the name of way 581825485? If so, I suggest adding a note to say so. If it is a description, it needs to be removed. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 59640251 by Pink Duck @ 2018-06-07 14:48 | 1 | 2018-08-26 11:03 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is Access Road really the name of this road? If so I suggest adding a note to say it is the name. If it is a description, then it needs to be removed. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-08-26 11:12 | Pink Duck ♦151 | There's already a source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator for where the name came from. It's not an official council one, and OS' is indeed more a description than an actual signed name, but it's the nearest thing to a name for it in that case. Could add a signed=no tag perhaps. | |
| 61260648 by urViator @ 2018-08-01 11:44 | 1 | 2018-08-26 11:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if way 88757405 is still part of the A4118, please revert this to highway=primary, otherwise please remove the ref. 'A' roads should be tagged as either trunk or primary.Thanks,Mike |
| 60312352 by smeòrach @ 2018-07-01 00:15 | 1 | 2018-08-26 10:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changer you have set ways 407735575 and 603904094 to access=no + bicycle=yes. Can you confirm whether pedestrian access is allowed? I suggest adding foot=yes or foot=no as appropriate to clarify the access (many mappers put access=no when they actually mean vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no... |
| 2 | 2018-08-28 21:51 | smeòrach ♦32 | Hi, thanks for pointing out. I've fixed it. | |
| 61977570 by andy mackey @ 2018-08-25 06:48 | 1 | 2018-08-26 10:26 | Mike Baggaley | Hi on way 93456638, you have changed foot=designated to access=designated + foot=yes. The value of access=designated is not valid - please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated . If this is a public footpath, the correct value should be foot=designated + designation=public_... |
| 61786645 by andy mackey @ 2018-08-19 08:01 | 1 | 2018-08-21 17:25 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Andy, on way 92705635 you have set access=designated which the wiki indicates should not be used (it gives no indication of what type of access is designated). If you intend to show it is a public footpath, please use foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Than... |
| 61725741 by deptho @ 2018-08-16 19:35 | 1 | 2018-08-21 17:22 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 617265619 you have set access=designated, which the wiki indicates should not be used and gives no indication of what is actually meant. If you mean it is a public footpath, please use foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-08-22 17:12 | deptho ♦4 | Hi Mike, Thanks for your feedback. I have set designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic and removed the access tag as I as can't confirm (wiki)"ALWAYS add known access rights" I can only assume access to everything based the Byway sign? | |
| 61620359 by POHB @ 2018-08-13 09:55 | 1 | 2018-08-21 17:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 616557485, you have set access=public, which is not a standard access value. If you mean that this is a public footpath, please use foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review.Cheers,Mike |
| 61615003 by Allchin @ 2018-08-13 07:10 | 1 | 2018-08-21 17:16 | Mike Baggaley | Hi on way 616513147, you have set access=public. If you intended to show that this is a public footpath, then this should be done by foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Cheers,Mike |
| 61189854 by Rotilom @ 2018-07-30 10:25 | 1 | 2018-07-30 15:13 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | You seem to have tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/609603810 as a roundabout when it is not a roundabout... |
| 2 | 2018-07-30 17:17 | Rotilom ♦14 | I have undone this roundabout. Thanks for raising!Tagging roundabouts (which really are!) ensures that directions are right etc., so worth doing where possible.Sorry again! | |
| 3 | 2018-08-08 00:18 | Mike Baggaley | You also seem to have retagged way 475685456 as a roundabout. I do not believe this is a roundabout. Please review.Cheers,Mike | |
| 4 | 2018-08-08 00:40 | Mike Baggaley | Also way 24373989 was correctly tagged as junction=circular and has been set to junction=roundabout. | |
| 5 | 2018-08-09 07:56 | Rotilom ♦14 | I have undone these two tags. Sorry about that.It can be fulfilling catching a significant number of roundabouts that are reversed, but it looks like I got a bit carried away. Sorry again. | |
| 61271047 by wilpin @ 2018-08-01 17:36 | 1 | 2018-08-08 00:03 | Mike Baggaley | Hi in this change you have set way 613086094 with highway=s. Did you intend highway=service?Cheers,Mike |
| 61136032 by AlwynWellington @ 2018-07-28 06:59 | 1 | 2018-07-29 16:37 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I suggest creating a route relation named Whithorn Way, and removing the bracketed names from the highways.Regards,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-07-31 09:06 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | Mike, thank you for this prompt.I had noticed route relations some time ago and could not see how to get started.A few hours ago I completed creating and adding a route relationship for the route from Paisley Abbey to Bruce Statute Square, AyrEarlier in July I had changed the feature of many s... | |
| 3 | 2018-08-02 23:54 | AlwynWellington ♦58 | Mike, I believe I have completed this task. As I understand the route preferred by others, in part, used busy A road with no shoulders I have not mapped section from Grivan to Barhill.WayMarkeTrails.org was very helpful for the overview.Can you please review what i have done and offer co... | |
| 4 | 2018-08-04 13:21 | Mike Baggaley | HI Alan, that looks mostly fine to me. I see that the route has been split into 3 segments (there was a 4th but it only had one way attached and duplicated part of the route, so I deleted it). I suggest that you also create a top-level route that just has the route segments in it and no individual w... | |
| 61098103 by AlwynWellington @ 2018-07-26 19:09 | 1 | 2018-07-29 16:33 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the names of routes should not be be added to highway names. Instead the highway segments should be attached to a route relation which has the name of the route and other details about it. In this case, ways are already attached to the NCR 7 cycling route. There is also a route for the Ayrshire ... |
| 61024107 by day1312 @ 2018-07-24 13:23 | 1 | 2018-07-25 14:40 | Mike Baggaley | HI, you may want to read the comment added by Gabriel Reynolds in previous change 50706648 which states that only part of the slip road has motorway status and hence the first part was in my view correctly tagged as trunk_link. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-07-25 16:04 | day1312 ♦2 | Please have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link#Link_roads_between_different_highways_types and the linked table:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Link_roads_between_different_highways_types | |
| 3 | 2018-07-25 16:30 | Mike Baggaley | I accept this is a tricky one. However, pedestrians can proceed from the roundabout over the bridge and turn off onto the path, here the road clearly does not have motorway status. Also traffic can proceed along the two-way section and return without entering the motorway, hence it does not solely c... | |
| 4 | 2018-07-25 16:34 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | The joining PROW would prevent the last stretch being under motorway regulations which suggests the original mapping was correct.Cheers Phil | |
| 61023342 by tubbai11 @ 2018-07-24 13:04 | 1 | 2018-07-25 10:28 | Mike Baggaley | Hi on way 162969892 you have set access=no + psv=yes which disallows pedestrians and cyclists. Is this correct or should it be motor_vehicle=no?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-07-26 17:53 | tubbai11 ♦2 | Hi Mike, thanks for pointing that out, I had made that change in error. I've fixed it now. | |
| 60871956 by Sharajj @ 2018-07-19 13:13 | 1 | 2018-07-24 19:10 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. I notice that in this change you have tagged two paths with bridge=culvert. This is non-standard use of the bridge tag. If the stream is in a culvert, then the path should not have a bridge tag, instead the stream should have tunnel=culvert . Can you please review the... |
| 60810281 by bramblemagnet @ 2018-07-17 18:46 | 1 | 2018-07-24 17:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you appear to have changed a longer section from bridleway to path than the new section of bridleway, hence the bridleway now stops in the middle of nowhere. Is this what you intended?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-07-25 12:19 | bramblemagnet ♦1 | Hi, thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't realised. I think I've managed to fix it now. | |
| 60806661 by Greyseal18 @ 2018-07-17 16:12 | 1 | 2018-07-24 15:38 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you seem to have changed a number of ways to have the ref M6 Toll or M6 Toll;M42 and set toll=yes when they are not within the region of charge for their use. I suggest that the name M6 Toll should only be used for ways where it is necessary to pay. M42, as previously set for the ... |
| 2 | 2018-07-25 16:43 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | I recently surveyed the signs on this section and can confirm that the edit made by Brian was correct and matched my survey of the signs. The correct OSM mapping is always what we see on the ground.Please revert these changes.Cheers Phil | |
| 3 | 2018-07-28 08:33 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Yes - pretty sure https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142234723/history isn't toll=yes since it's the southbound link from the M42 isn't it? Also I've always thought of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29180118/history as being part of the M42 (even though it probably has lanes s... | |
| 4 | 2018-07-28 08:42 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | As discussed above I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61137468 . It's probably worth raising any "interesting questions" about road ref values on talk-gb rather than just changing them as lots of people are familiar with this area. | |
| 5 | 2020-11-10 18:57 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | The road numbered sections are correct. You sometimes have to ignore signage as they are signed with convenient numbers rather than the real ones. The section of road from M6(E) to M42(N) is the M6 Toll, albeit without any toll being paid. This sign mentions both M6 Toll and M42, neither are in brac... | |
| 6 | 2020-11-22 12:49 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | @Nathan_A_RF (at the risk of stating what should be obvious) we can't use Google images to update OpenStreetMap.Re "You sometimes have to ignore signage as they are signed with convenient numbers rather than the real ones" how do you know which are the "real" numbers in th... | |
| 60551546 by anthonykirby @ 2018-07-09 20:06 | 1 | 2018-07-15 07:13 | Mike Baggaley | HI, there appear to be a couple of walking routes along this way, can you clarify whether these have moved to the nearby road? Also this still has designation=public_bridleway, does it need removing?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-07-15 14:19 | anthonykirby ♦1 | well spotted, thank you! I'd changed the "allowed access" but missed the tag. Now fixed. (& I'll check the other nearby changes).In answer to your question, the bridleway has been moved to the new service road that's just to the east (new bridge over the railway). | |
| 60194027 by Narod @ 2018-06-26 20:35 | 1 | 2018-07-07 07:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. If this section of road is now a B road, please set the ref to the new value. If it has been declassified, please remove the ref and set the highway to tertiary. If it is still the A513, please revert the highway back to primary. The highway value solely depends on it... |
| 60123857 by seawolf @ 2018-06-24 15:38 | 1 | 2018-06-24 15:38 | seawolf ♦1 | https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/ext/roads/roadworks-and-closures |
| 2 | 2018-06-24 15:39 | seawolf ♦1 | 4 Jun - 23 Julhttps://roadworks.org/?104800160 | |
| 3 | 2018-07-06 20:21 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I don't think we should be mapping closures that are this short. If they must be mapped, the syntax should use the access:conditional tag e.g access:conditional=no@(2018 Jun 04 - 2018 Jul 23), rather than setting the access tag to conditional=no. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike | |
| 60121096 by kaferna @ 2018-06-24 13:38 | 1 | 2018-07-06 17:32 | Mike Baggaley | HI on footway 200267632 you have set access=no and foot=yes, which leads to confusion as to whether or not pedestrian access is allowed. If pedestrian access is allowed, please remove access=no, if it is not, please remove foot=yes.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-07-06 21:06 | kaferna ♦1 | Hi Mike, thanks for pointing out my error. Pedestrian access is in fact allowed, so I have removed the access=no tag. | |
| 60091168 by MacLondon @ 2018-06-23 03:20 | 1 | 2018-07-06 14:34 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 600916790 has access=private but has 2 cycle routes running along it. Should there be foot and/or bicycle access?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-07-09 13:56 | MacLondon ♦215 | Thanks Mike,I've added permissive tags for cyclists here,Mac | |
| 60320840 by Welshie @ 2018-07-01 12:32 | 1 | 2018-07-06 14:28 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see that in this change you have marked parts of Wall Hall Drive as private, however, it appears to have the Hertfordshire Way walking route running along it. Can you confirm what pedestrian access there should be, or whether the route is wrongly marked?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-07-09 12:39 | Welshie ♦28 | Thank you for highlighting. It is indeed, a private road, but on taking a closer look at it today, access=permissive seems more suitable, since the Hertfordshire Way does indeed go this way. | |
| 60156831 by ◪ Jarv @ 2018-06-25 16:53 | 1 | 2018-07-06 14:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Thomas, please do not add the names of trails such as John Bunyon Trail directly to ways tagged as highway=* - the trail name is held in the associated route relation. Route names are not shown in the standard OSM map, but can be seen at waymarkedtrails.orgThanks,Mike |
| 60040229 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-06-21 11:10 | 1 | 2018-06-27 11:17 | mueschel ♦6,567 | Hi,could you explain the meaning of "foot:closed = permissive"? If access by foot is not permitted, the tag is "foot=no".Jan |
| 2 | 2018-06-27 14:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jan, this was an attempt to retain the permissive value for foot whilst also indicating that the path was closed (access=no). This seemed better than simply removing the foot tag. If you can find a better way to show that pedestrian access is permissive but currently not allowed I would be please... | |
| 3 | 2018-06-30 16:48 | mueschel ♦6,567 | For temporary closed ways, we have the "temporary:" prefix -> temporary:access = no.You can also just add a note explaining what the access rules will be after reconstruction. | |
| 59882394 by Strimplers @ 2018-06-15 19:43 | 1 | 2018-06-21 12:32 | Mike Baggaley | HI Gavin on ways 598186413 and 598186604 you have specified access=public which is a non-standard value. If this is a designated public footpath I suggest using foot=designated or if it is accessible by the public but is not specifically a public footpath, I siggest foot=yes. Can you review?Che... |
| 2 | 2018-06-21 13:12 | Strimplers ♦33 | Hello Mike.All done. Thanks for the advice.Gavin. | |
| 59885760 by nilsph @ 2018-06-15 23:17 | 1 | 2018-06-21 12:28 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on ways 598214848 and 598214850 you have specified access=designated. This is an invalid value - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated . If this is a public footpath you need foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-06-21 20:22 | nilsph ♦2 | These parts aren't designated footpaths to my knowledge, one of them is undesignated and a footpath, the other one suitable for motor vehicles but AIUI private. I've changed these in 60055441. Mind that the paths connecting to the south of it (way 458317728 etc.) don't really match up... | |
| 59335805 by Russ McD @ 2018-05-28 10:14 | 1 | 2018-06-21 12:17 | Mike Baggaley | Hi I see you have set access=designated on ways 591563477 and 591563483. This is an invalid value - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated . Did you mean foot=designated? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-06-22 07:22 | Russ McD ♦223 | Mike,Noted and tags removed, along with a few other ways similarly tagged.However, this mistake is easily made by users of Potlatch2 as the "access=designated" tag is offered as a choice on the drop down. Unless you had read the Wiki first, you would have no idea it was incorrect.Pe... | |
| 59347049 by DaveF @ 2018-05-28 17:57 | 1 | 2018-06-21 11:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, did you intend to indicate way 34060947 to have been closed by setting access=no? If so you need to remove foot=designated. If not, please remove access=no as in combination with highway=footway and foot=designated it leads to confusion.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-06-21 12:03 | DaveF ♦1,563 | It's temporarily closed for repair work of the bridge over. While it's closed it's still designated as a public footpath. | |
| 3 | 2018-06-21 12:07 | Mike Baggaley | The designation is defined by designation=public_footpath and I am not suggesting it is removed. The foot=designated does need to be removed though as it overrides access=no and indicates that the path is open for walking. I also suggest adding a note to say why it is closed. | |
| 59873364 by hexplore @ 2018-06-15 12:35 | 1 | 2018-06-21 11:23 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I have removed access=no from this open area as it leads to confusion in combination with highway=pedestrian and foot=pedestrian. I note that the surrounding paths have foot=customers. I would expect the paths and open areas to have the same access values. Should this be permissive or customers?... |
| 2 | 2018-06-25 12:25 | hexplore ♦9 | Hi Mike, good catch! You're right, that should be foot=customers, my mistake. I've put that on.Cheers,Scott. | |
| 59709458 by harfus @ 2018-06-10 11:45 | 1 | 2018-06-21 11:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if Middlesex Passage is closed during construction, you need to remove foot=yes as this overrides access=no for pedestrians. Can you please review?Thanks,MIke |
| 59690174 by poshbakerloo @ 2018-06-09 12:40 | 1 | 2018-06-21 09:59 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this is now the A555, I think it should also be highway=trunk (and the adjoining sections at each end) Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 59559596 by Davidh182 @ 2018-06-05 07:39 | 1 | 2018-06-21 09:56 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this road has been downgraded from the A283, please remove the ref from the road, otherwise please revert to highway=primary - only B roads should be tagged as secondary. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_GuidelinesThanks,Mike |
| 54743011 by Baviaan @ 2017-12-18 21:36 | 1 | 2018-05-20 21:23 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, should amenity=parking be removed from relation 534410? You comment suggests this is no longer a car park, and it can't be both a service road and a car park.Cheers,Mike |
| 59013192 by WanderingJack @ 2018-05-16 10:51 | 1 | 2018-05-20 17:08 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I think in this change you were probably intending to indicate that the highway has one or more sidewalks alongside it. The way to do this is to use the sidewalk= key (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk). The use of footway=sidewalk is intended for a s... |
| 58935222 by Russ @ 2018-05-13 22:06 | 1 | 2018-05-20 11:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have marked way 4982131 (part of Kirtling Street) as private. However, it appears to have the Thames Path running along it. Can you please review whether pedestrian access should be allowed or whether the Thames Path is marked in the wrong place?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-05-20 11:20 | Russ ♦56 | It appears to be temporarily closed for the Tideway works (that'll be at least for 3-4 years I'd expect). I didn't survey the dogleg of Kirtling Street to the east so I can't confirm whether it still links up to the path/William Henry Walk there, but given the extent of the Tidew... | |
| 58969273 by JFarnsworth @ 2018-05-15 02:29 | 1 | 2018-05-20 11:04 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if a road has two names then one name goes in name and the other in alt_name, as was already the case for this road. I have therefore reverted this change. You can also use name:left and name:right if the two sides of the road have different names. |
| 58391163 by zorque @ 2018-04-24 22:31 | 1 | 2018-05-07 00:16 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this changeset the NAPTAN data (bus stop data) for the St Hugh Of Lincoln Church stops seem to have been merged into the church and adjacent building in ways 153370370 and 153370417 and the bus stops have been lost. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-05-09 15:23 | zorque ♦14 | Hi Mike,of course, you are right. I'll revert the bus stop and correct the church building, most likely tomorrow. Thanks for highlighting.Marc | |
| 3 | 2018-05-10 22:07 | zorque ♦14 | fixed https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58862738 | |
| 58687307 by mrpacmanmap @ 2018-05-04 18:12 | 1 | 2018-05-06 23:43 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think the post office you have added at node 5597063344 on High Street has closed down (presumably moved to Halesowen Street). Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 58407209 by ProManglementer @ 2018-04-25 12:43 | 1 | 2018-05-06 14:30 | Mike Baggaley | HI, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please note that road numbers do not go in the name field, they go in the ref field. Also, is this really part of the A3290 - if it is, then the highway should be set to primary not tertiary. Can you please review your change?Thanks,Mike |
| 58311382 by JayCBR @ 2018-04-22 14:22 | 1 | 2018-04-22 21:41 | Paul Berry ♦124 | The Headrow axis is not a B-road. It's not even open to all traffic. |
| 2 | 2018-04-23 07:30 | JayCBR ♦39 | its more than a b-road, its the major road in Leeds..couldnt be even secondary? | |
| 3 | 2018-04-23 08:01 | Paul Berry ♦124 | It's a C-road (not sure of unpublished number) but note that it's restricted to buses/taxis/cycles/access for most of its length. Even the Loop Road is only C-class: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4148004 | |
| 4 | 2018-04-23 14:39 | Mike Baggaley | HI, Ways 400349313 and 454077550 have ref=A64, so either the ref is wrong or they should not be secondary. I am not local, but have been along that road and believe it has green signs, indicating it should be trunk. Can you please review these two ways?Thanks,Mike | |
| 5 | 2018-04-23 14:55 | Paul Berry ♦124 | There's possibly some confusion with recent changes regarding how OSM represents A-roads. Apologies in advance if this is already known...OSM | RealityTrunk | Primary A-Road (yellow on green signage)*Primary | Secondary/Non-Primary A-Road (black on white signage)Secondary | B-RoadUn... | |
| 6 | 2018-04-23 16:37 | JayCBR ♦39 | i am sorry i didnt realize there was such a restriction..if thats the case maybe the restricted section should be a service road and maybe the loop could be secondary..about the underground section of A64 i need to have some research | |
| 7 | 2018-04-23 20:50 | JayCBR ♦39 | i dont think ways 400349313 and 454077550 are parts of A64, the signs only point out where it leads (York A64), its like a side road | |
| 8 | 2018-04-24 11:03 | Paul Berry ♦124 | Those ways are signed York A64--no brackets--according to local signage on the ground. | |
| 57538751 by Charlie Harding @ 2018-03-26 15:09 | 1 | 2018-04-20 20:35 | Mike Baggaley | Hi did you intend foot=no rather than foot=no2 on way 573229622? Is this some sort of cycle course? If so it might be better tagged as leisure=track rather than highway=cycleway. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-04-20 20:49 | Charlie Harding ♦1 | Hi Mike,Yes, it is a cycle course. Should I just replace the highway tag with leisure=track? | |
| 3 | 2018-04-20 22:47 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Charlie, yes. I'd also add sport=cycling to clarify that it is a cycling track.Cheers,Mike | |
| 58105272 by Zoooooooooom @ 2018-04-15 08:45 | 1 | 2018-04-20 20:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hi is there really a camp site at this point? |
| 58237869 by NorthIsland @ 2018-04-19 16:16 | 1 | 2018-04-20 20:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change some ways that have highway=footway have been marked with access statements that are confusing. Way 572209865 has access=private and foot=designated; 572209861 has access=no and foot=designated. As footways only have pedestrian access (unless some other mode of transport is explic... |
| 2 | 2018-04-21 16:31 | NorthIsland ♦18 | Thanks for that. Yes, I agree, for footpaths you only have to add designation =publicfootpath if there is a sign - the rest is default. I have gone around the area and set footpaths back to default. Bit of trouble with driveways and tracks where a ROW runs along it - have to set motors (and assumed)... | |
| 57723925 by alantw @ 2018-04-01 22:25 | 1 | 2018-04-20 19:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, just wondered whether you know whether Little Studley Close and Spring Bank Road (way renamed to have both names in this change) are two names for the same road (one either side) or whether Little Studley Close is at the end of Spring Bank Road? If the road has two names, one should go in name a... |
| 57813906 by jpennycook @ 2018-04-04 20:02 | 1 | 2018-04-16 23:06 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I suspect that way 402784688 should be named Wells Lane and that the "& St Georges School" part just indicates that the school is to be found down there rather than being part of the name. Can you confirm whether this is the case? (I'm assuming you are local.) I note that St G... |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 06:20 | jpennycook ♦326 | Hello Mike.Thanks for the message. The full name is shown on a street name sign, like you'd find on a normal residential street, so I thought I ought to record it on OSM in case people are looking out for the sign with the name. However, I believe the name of the road, as opposed to the nam... | |
| 3 | 2018-04-17 16:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jon, thanks for the quick reply. I think that we should record the real name of the street rather than the including the extended detail in the name tag. Any objections if I change this and add a note saying what is on the sign?Cheers,Mike | |
| 4 | 2018-04-17 16:31 | jpennycook ♦326 | Hello Mike.Thanks for checking with me. That's fine - please go ahead.Jon | |
| 58076708 by RossA @ 2018-04-13 21:26 | 1 | 2018-04-17 15:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in the change a number of ways (31140891, 299417582, 41121952, 43462076, 5096325) have been set with foot=permissive;yes. Can you please review and set one value or the other as appropriate?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 15:53 | RossA ♦2 | Well spotted Mike - what do you use to spot this sort of thing? I’ve corrected I think but will double check when home later. | |
| 3 | 2018-04-17 16:09 | Mike Baggaley | I use mkgmap to build a Garmin map from OSM data, and my build process includes checks for various things, one of which is unrecognised access values. | |
| 4 | 2018-10-06 08:20 | GerdP ♦2,751 | There is also way 292244991 withhighway=track;stepsNo idea if a track can have steps, but I think it is more likely that this is a hw=path or hw=bridleway. | |
| 58148008 by Allchin @ 2018-04-16 19:23 | 1 | 2018-04-17 14:18 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have added access=public to way 575467490. this is not a valid value for access. If you mean that the road has a public footpath running along it, this should be mapped by using designation=public_footpath and foot=designated. If you mean that the way is open to all traffic, t... |
| 58138963 by drnoble @ 2018-04-16 13:56 | 1 | 2018-04-17 13:54 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see from your note that this path is not open yet, but you have bicycle=yes which in conjunction with access=no indicates that cycles can use the path but pedestrians can not - I suspect this is not what you intended. If the path is under construction, it might be better to use highway=constru... |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 16:56 | drnoble ♦49 | Thanks Mike, it was an error on my part. The path is built, but fenced off. I'm not actually sure if it will be a cycle path, it was just a tag copy/paste mistake, have resolved now | |
| 58131766 by Daveymorrisuk @ 2018-04-16 09:27 | 1 | 2018-04-17 13:46 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset you have added access=no to way 224158695, which has bicycle=yes and horse=yes. This combination indicates that bikes and horses can use the bridleway but pedestrians cannot, which seems unlikely. Can you review your change and If the bridleway has been closed for some reason, ... |
| 2 | 2018-04-17 14:01 | Daveymorrisuk ♦8 | Thanks Mike, I've corrected that now. The footpath actually runs parallel to the Bridlepath as it goes through the farmyard. Its a bit odd there and most people just take the footpath to avoid the dogs! | |
| 57808915 by BaldMapper @ 2018-04-04 16:43 | 1 | 2018-04-16 00:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 576409451 you have set access=public. If you mean this is a public footpath, then this should be mapped as designation=public_footpath and foot=designated. Also, the south west end does not connect to anything. Should it join the nearby track? Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 57901464 by Local Mapper @ 2018-04-07 21:40 | 1 | 2018-04-15 23:46 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change you have added access=no to way 92218891 which has highway=footway and foot=yes. This is leading to confusion over whether the way has pedestrian access or not. If the footway has been closed, can you remove foot=yes and bicycle=yes, which override access=no. If the footway is ope... |
| 57609666 by driftraf @ 2018-03-28 18:10 | 1 | 2018-04-15 23:42 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, could you clarify the access you meant by adding access=private to way 59575961? This has highway=footway and foot=yes, so adding access=private has no effect as a footway already has no access other than foot and foot=yes overrides access=private for pedestrians. It leads to confusion over what... |
| 57739014 by David_GR @ 2018-04-02 13:08 | 1 | 2018-04-15 23:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi David,Welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point: when adding a UK footpath, bridleway or byway reference, please note that this goes in the prow_ref field rather than the name field. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_refKeep up the good work,Mike |
| 57927248 by Premsakhare @ 2018-04-09 03:01 | 1 | 2018-04-15 23:04 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I assume from this change that these roads are now constructed and that the name is no longer u/c 8/09. If possible, can you review the names of the two ways so named? Can the construction= tag also be removed?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-04-18 22:23 | Nakaner-repair ♦8,261 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 58217008 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by a group of commercial editors everywhere except North and South America. They "fixed" routing "errors" but hided real errors instead of... | |
| 57570365 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-03-27 14:51 | 1 | 2018-03-27 16:23 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Please add a description to your changesets, so that other people can quickly see a summary of what’s changed. Thanks! |
| 2 | 2018-03-27 16:30 | Mike Baggaley | Trivial changeset. Moved it nearer the junction. | |
| 41073483 by Mike Baggaley @ 2016-07-27 21:52 | 1 | 2018-03-26 17:49 | Borbus ♦31 | I'm not sure about this change. I can see that it looks redundant having the name on the route and the ways, but I would argue that locally the way itself is known as Marriot's Way, rather than it being a route comprised of many anonymous ways. There is still a route called Marriot's ... |
| 2 | 2018-03-26 23:37 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I didn't quite understand your argument, but assume you are suggesting that a series of ways that form a part of the Marriot's Way route are also themselves known as Marriot's Way locally. If this is what you mean, then the loc_name field would be the most appropriate one to use ... | |
| 57358439 by thebeerglass @ 2018-03-20 16:30 | 1 | 2018-03-26 14:17 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. You may not be aware, but we map highway= according to what the way looks like, not its legal position. Hence a way that can be driven along would not be mapped as highway=footway, even if the legal access rights are just public footpath. In this case, as it appears t... |
| 2 | 2018-03-26 19:47 | thebeerglass ♦1 | Hi Mike, Thanks for the guidance. Trimm's Drove is only a driveable track for the first 50m from the east. Thereafter it is most certainly a narrow, muddy footpath. I live next to it so I don't want anyone thinking they can drive down it! | |
| 3 | 2018-03-26 23:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in that case, I suggest splitting the way so the the eastern 50m is a highway=track, and the remainder is highway=footway.Regards,Mike | |
| 57458653 by John Grubb @ 2018-03-23 13:57 | 1 | 2018-03-26 16:02 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think the access tags set on way 572389778 are incorrect as there are several tags with a value of agricultural. This value should indicate that there is a legal right for anyone to use the way for agricultural purposes, not that it is used by the owner for agricultural access. I suspect that ... |
| 2 | 2018-03-27 08:48 | John Grubb ♦40 | Thanks for that. I'll add it to the snagging list for my Bishops Lydeard project. I'm going to sort out all the schoolboy errors in one hit when I've finished making them! :D | |
| 3 | 2018-04-30 07:02 | John Grubb ♦40 | Right; I think that's all squared away now. | |
| 57498730 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-03-25 01:08 | 1 | 2018-03-25 14:59 | lakedistrict ♦308 | Hi Mike, thanks for your edits around here. I guess you were walking (part of) the Dales Way? Did you see if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38555464 is accessible yet or if it is still closed? Thanks |
| 2 | 2018-03-25 15:20 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, yes, I was walking what might be considered the first part of the Dales Way - Bowness to Burneside, then caught the train back. Very enjoyable in Sunday's snow! I didn't see whether way 38555464 was open or closed - I note that the way has access=no and foot=designated, which are contr... | |
| 3 | 2018-03-25 15:42 | lakedistrict ♦308 | No worries, I'm local so I'll check it out sometime soon. | |
| 56874868 by Sidders S @ 2018-03-04 16:41 | 1 | 2018-03-11 12:02 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. I wonder if you could clarify whether way 4639166, edited in this change, allows pedestrian access or not? It is tagged with both access=private and foot=designated, which as a footway only allows pedestrian access, causes confusion as to which tag is the one intended... |
| 56904666 by ElectrifiedLex @ 2018-03-05 14:02 | 1 | 2018-03-09 15:34 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Lewis, welcome to Open Street Map, I hope you are enjoying mapping. Just a small point, please note that leisure=playground is the correct tagging for a playground, and it should not have name=Playground. Only proper nouns should be used in the name field; if a feature has no name or the name is ... |
| 56998578 by Andy_W @ 2018-03-08 12:55 | 1 | 2018-03-09 15:08 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Andy, hope you don't mind me commenting, but access=designated is an invalid combination of tag and value. Only the specific transport modes should have a value of designated. Please see the note at the top of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-03-09 15:48 | Andy_W ♦9 | Hi Mike,Thanks for fixing. I didn't spot that in some of my recent updates.Cheers.Andy. | |
| 56906556 by Pete Owens @ 2018-03-05 15:11 | 1 | 2018-03-09 14:53 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Pete, I see you have added access for bicycles along the part of Village Way that |I gather is closed for construction. Do you know whether there is pedestrian access as well? If so, I suggest changing access=no to motor_vehicle=no.Cheers,Mike |
| 56823189 by Richardg6paj @ 2018-03-02 15:21 | 1 | 2018-03-05 21:02 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Richard, you seem to have changed parts of Messingham Road, Northfield Road and Scotter Road from trunk to Secondary, but the ref contains A159. Only B roads should have highway=secondary. If the A159 has been downgraded to a B road, please put the new ref so that the highway and ref are consiste... |
| 56814257 by Globalforester @ 2018-03-02 10:07 | 1 | 2018-03-05 17:13 | Mike Baggaley | HI welcome to OpenStreetMap. Hope you don't mind me commenting, but the name field should only contain a proper noun, and should not contain any descriptive information. If a feature has no name by which it is known, p[lease leave the name field blank.I have removed the names "Shared a... |
| 2 | 2018-03-05 18:58 | Globalforester ♦1 | Hi Mike - I guess this is my first foray into OSM and I did not spot clear guidance on the use of that field. Based on your guidance, technically I should have used "Donview access" instead of "Shared access" although the latter is the legal entity on the deeds. CheersNick | |
| 56725438 by draxus @ 2018-02-27 14:50 | 1 | 2018-03-05 15:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I have removed this separate bus lane as it is already tagged as psv=opposite_lane in the existing ways for Central Drive, and this seems to be a better way of tagging it (opposite_lane.Regards,Mike |
| 56556784 by Jonathan Howell @ 2018-02-21 17:57 | 1 | 2018-02-25 09:32 | Mike Baggaley | HI Jonathan, hope you don't mind me commenting, but the correct way to tag a car park is with amenity=parking. I've updated way 563089943 with this tagging.Regards,Mike |
| 56159770 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-02-07 20:06 | 1 | 2018-02-20 01:23 | JayTurnr ♦155 | I assume Naptan import data is important? |
| 2 | 2018-02-20 07:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jay, NaPTAN data is an import of public transport data from https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan and should be on a node at the position of the bus stop. Not sure how the data ended up on this way.Regards,Mike | |
| 56348412 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-02-14 10:06 | 1 | 2018-02-14 12:48 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Please don't amend entities when you've no idea of the layout. Once again it needs pointing out to you that roundabouts do not need separate junctions. Amend your practices to suit. |
| 2 | 2018-02-14 13:25 | Mike Baggaley | I don't understand your comment. My change was to move two junctions slightly apart to comply with the guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout which state:"Important Consideration When MappingAll ways which intersect with the junction=roundabout shou... | |
| 56303923 by John Grubb @ 2018-02-12 19:42 | 1 | 2018-02-14 10:09 | Mike Baggaley | Hi John, on way 560136472, it looks like you have set motor_vehicle=prp. Is this a mistake?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2018-02-14 11:53 | John Grubb ♦40 | Yes, it is. Fat-finger syndrome strikes again! Fixed. | |
| 55974533 by Pete Owens @ 2018-02-01 18:46 | 1 | 2018-02-05 19:43 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Pete, in this change way 151234397, which appears to be a motorway slip road, has had bicycle=yes added. Is this a mistake?Cheers,Mike |
| 55924441 by Mike Baggaley @ 2018-01-31 08:57 | 1 | 2018-01-31 13:23 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Can't work out what you changed here? |
| 2 | 2018-01-31 13:39 | Mike Baggaley | I split closed way 123192913 in two to clarify it is not an area. Must have missed the comment. | |
| 55606801 by Trubshaw @ 2018-01-20 16:01 | 1 | 2018-01-23 17:18 | Mike Baggaley | HI please note that access=designated is not a valid combination of tag and value - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=designated . You need to use foot=designated for a public footpath.I have updated ways 554514038, 554514039, 554514040 and 554514041 created in this changeset.... |
| 55268365 by SK53 @ 2018-01-08 16:06 | 1 | 2018-01-22 11:48 | Mike Baggaley | Hi in way 549976106 you have put foot=permissive; yes - can you confirm which is correct?ThanksMike |
| 54801468 by CartogLarry @ 2017-12-21 00:57 | 1 | 2018-01-22 11:47 | Mike Baggaley | Hi in way 548254444 you have put foot=permissive; yes - can you confirm which is correct?ThanksMike |
| 55494343 by kevjs1982 @ 2018-01-16 14:08 | 1 | 2018-01-22 11:17 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 165209685, 165209689 and 165209690, you have added access=no, however this is overridden by the existing foot=permissive, so has no effect. I suggest removing the foot tags and adding a note to say why they are closed and when they are expected to reopen.Cheers,Mike |
| 55382477 by whitetop666 @ 2018-01-12 14:54 | 1 | 2018-01-22 08:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map.This changeset has changed some of Wolverhampton Street from secondary to primary. However, the ways also have a ref of B4587. Is this now an A road? If so, please change the ref. If it is still the B4587, please revert the highway type to secondary as per the UK map... |
| 2 | 2018-01-22 12:14 | whitetop666 ♦1 | The road has been set to how google had it, if its been changed since i updated then by all means change it. | |
| 3 | 2018-03-14 22:19 | ToeBee ♦183 | We can not use any Google data to modify OpenStreetMap. This is a copyright violation. We can only use primary sources (your own eyes) or any source of data who has given us EXPLICIT permission to use their data.Also, it seems like you deleted some data on this outline: https://www.openstreetma... | |
| 22261130 by DaveF @ 2014-05-10 23:57 | 1 | 2017-12-18 13:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, just wondered whether you know if the path has been reopened following the temporary diversion of way 106373596 some 3 years ago?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-18 13:33 | DaveF ♦1,563 | After 3 years I'd assume yes, but not walked that way since. Needs a survey. | |
| 37612487 by Simon Nuttall @ 2016-03-04 16:53 | 1 | 2017-12-17 16:53 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Simon, it is a couple of years since this change, but thought it would be worth asking you anyway. Relation 1215135 is named "SE Cambridge Cycle Route". I can see lots of cycleways on the Cambridge City Council web site, and it shows the ways in this relation as being cycleways. However... |
| 2 | 2017-12-17 18:02 | Simon Nuttall ♦1 | The route from Parker's Piece via Gresham Road, the Carter Bridge and on down to the Tins was branded with that name back in about 1990 when the City put in a bid to build that bridge. https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/10220/ I don't recall it ever being labelled as such on the s... | |
| 53736578 by Welshie @ 2017-11-13 10:51 | 1 | 2017-12-17 10:23 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you confirm whether "New Square Park Access Road" is the actual road name on way 161908134, or is it a description?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-17 15:33 | Welshie ♦28 | 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 ... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-17 16:04 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks. I've had a look at the consultation notice, and as you say it is a description, not a name. Presumably the road has no name or the notice would have used it. Hence I've changed the tag from name to description.Regards,Mike | |
| 53465828 by The_JF @ 2017-11-02 23:40 | 1 | 2017-12-17 11:10 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify what you mean by foot=limited on way 537845418 ?Thanks,Mike |
| 54339389 by will_p @ 2017-12-04 19:07 | 1 | 2017-12-17 11:05 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on ways 16565027, 16565029 and 16565032 you have added access=private in this changeset. However, as they have foot=permissive, the change has had no effect other than to add confusion as to whether pedestrian access is intended to be permissive or private. Can you please remove either the foot... |
| 2 | 2017-12-17 12:18 | will_p ♦148 | Thank you for pointing this out. I agree it doesn't make sense. I should have removed foot=permissive when I added access=private. Now corrected. | |
| 54052818 by CutThroatJake @ 2017-11-24 15:24 | 1 | 2017-12-17 10:31 | Mike Baggaley | HI can you confirm whether Grimston Park Access Road is the actual name of way 416480088? It seems more like a description to me.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-17 12:59 | CutThroatJake ♦4 | Mike, your quite right, I must have had a senior moment. I'll make the correction once back on my PCApologiesTony | |
| 53850510 by tms13 @ 2017-11-16 18:01 | 1 | 2017-12-17 10:21 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I know the tag predates this change, but are you able to confirm whether the reference on way 186530431 is correct? It is currently set to A9000, but this seems unlikely for a bus-only tertiary road.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-19 13:17 | tms13 ♦77 | 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 rul... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-20 13:35 | tms13 ♦77 | I've just been down to Ferrytoll - FRB is definitely signed as A9000 on the approaches to the roundabout. | |
| 53544212 by Tom Heathcote @ 2017-11-06 03:41 | 1 | 2017-12-17 10:16 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Tom, I see that this change has reduced Brent Street from primary to secondary between Finchley Lane and Queens Road. However, it has ref A502. If the road is not or is no longer the A502, can you please remove the ref, otherwise please revert the road to primary. Please also note that the ways a... |
| 54369549 by Moretonmill @ 2017-12-05 15:34 | 1 | 2017-12-13 10:29 | Mike Baggaley | Hi in this changeset way 544794534 has been tagged as highway=footway, access=no, foot=permissive and name=Forestry access track. I have moved the name to the description tag, but can you confirm whether this would be better tagged as highway=track?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-13 11:16 | Moretonmill ♦2 | Hi Mike, it was created as a forestry access track but it’s now invaded with birch and pine and there’s only a narrow footpath left. Yours, Eddie | |
| 53508065 by jcs_uk @ 2017-11-04 16:08 | 1 | 2017-12-13 10:03 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you please clarify what you meant by access=public on way 538322682 ?(Public is not a standard value as defined at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access .)Thanks,Mike |
| 53736833 by brianboru @ 2017-11-13 11:00 | 1 | 2017-12-13 09:56 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 540167452 has access=block which I don't understand. Did you intend block to be in the surface tag? Or do you mean it is blocked (in which case access=no would make it clearer)?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-14 11:05 | brianboru ♦158 | MikeI'm not sure what I meant and I can't even remember if this footway is open or not so I just deleted the tagRegardsBrian | |
| 54234067 by Rag2711 @ 2017-12-01 12:30 | 1 | 2017-12-13 09:42 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify whether this is a children's playground (i.e. swings or similar) or a recreation ground (i.e. just a grassy area for general play)?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-22 18:21 | Rag2711 ♦1 | 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 locatio... | |
| 53987651 by Jèrriais janne @ 2017-11-21 22:27 | 1 | 2017-12-13 09:24 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset way 542165565 has been tagged as amenity=bank and name=ATM. I assume ATM is not actually the name of the bank. If it is a bank with an ATM, then please add atm=yes and remove the name tag. If it is just an ATM, please remove the name tag and change the amenity tag to amenity=at... |
| 54285514 by m902 @ 2017-12-03 00:08 | 1 | 2017-12-12 17:14 | Mike Baggaley | HI in this change you have added access=no to way 130805664 which has highway=foot and foot=designated. This causes confusion as we don't know whether you intended the access=no to mean that the path is closed (but as foot=designated overrides it it actually has no effect) or that you mean ther... |
| 2 | 2017-12-12 18:29 | m902 ♦21 | Hi Mike,This is a legal public footpath (foot=designated) but it is blocked at the stream because there is no bridge (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5127826625) and there is also no stile over the fence on the west side of the stream (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4724899564). With the agre... | |
| 3 | 2017-12-12 18:43 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Martin, thanks for the reply. I suggest removing foot=designated on the two ways either side of the stream. This would leave the path showing as a public footpath, but also show there is no access to it because of the access=no tag. I also suggest adding a note to the two ways explaining the situ... | |
| 4 | 2017-12-12 22:56 | m902 ♦21 | Done. Still not really quite right though, as access=no means there is no LEGAL right of access, whereas in this case the legal right remains but you can't physically access it. | |
| 53767142 by AJR-GB @ 2017-11-14 10:27 | 1 | 2017-12-12 17:07 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I notice you have updated way 135322328 as part of this change. It appears to have designation=public_bridleway, but horse=no and foot=no, which doesn't seem like a valid combination. I realise these values predate your change, but if you are local, can you check whether this is really a p... |
| 2 | 2017-12-12 19:18 | AJR-GB ♦3 | Hi Mike, I am local and will do but will be in the new year as I am traveling until then. Thanks | |
| 54211637 by Mike Parfitt @ 2017-11-30 17:30 | 1 | 2017-12-12 16:25 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Mike, way 55424394 also has the South West Coast Path running along it. |
| 53668679 by Joe E @ 2017-11-10 14:51 | 1 | 2017-12-12 16:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 43330779 which was marked as access=no in this changeset appears to have two cycle routes and one hiking route running along it. If the access restriction is only for motor vehicles, please change access=no to motor_vehicle=no. If the way is currently closed for some reason, please add a not... |
| 2 | 2017-12-27 20:25 | Joe E ♦8 | The way is closed and the reason correctly tagged as construction=yes as per https://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/weekly-roadworks-reportthough the re-opening date was unavailable at the time. | |
| 54349008 by Mike Parfitt @ 2017-12-05 00:11 | 1 | 2017-12-12 16:08 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Mike, way 177964373 which you have marked as private appears to have the South West Coast Path running along it, suggesting it should have foot=yes, or foot=designated and designation=public_footpath. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-13 14:29 | Mike Parfitt ♦12 | Given that the nodes of the way defining Passage Road were shared with those of the South West Coast Path, I had assumed that it would have been a duplication to also mark Passage Road for foot access, but I have just done so. | |
| 54081472 by michaelinredhill @ 2017-11-25 20:31 | 1 | 2017-12-12 14:10 | Mike Baggaley | HI, did you intend to rename way 141700425 from Clayhall Lane to way 0 in this change? It looks like it is probably a mistake.Cheers,Mike |
| 54406368 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-12-06 16:32 | 1 | 2017-12-06 22:02 | matt_ellery ♦74 | Hi Mike,I've carried out a bit more work on these three buildings (changeset 54415729 if you want to check)- Added smoking=yes to way 544250782 from the node that was deleted in this changeset.- Merged the Andrew Lyons node into way 544250762.- changed ways 544250762 and 70007760 to b... |
| 2 | 2017-12-07 08:31 | Mike Baggaley | Excellent, looks good to me! | |
| 53934518 by ndm @ 2017-11-19 22:04 | 1 | 2017-12-06 09:31 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are pedestrians and cycles allowed on any parts of this road? If so, can you change access=no to vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no as appropriate?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-06 22:50 | ndm ♦889 | If there were pedestrian access it would have a sidewalk tag. | |
| 53413440 by MacLondon @ 2017-11-01 04:00 | 1 | 2017-11-03 09:11 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 537316355 you have set foot=crossing, which looks like a mistake. Can you please check? Also, can you clarify foot=unofficial on way 536798839? The latter is tagged as a cycleway, and I believe that pedestrians are permitted on cycleways unless there is an explicit no pedestrians sign, i... |
| 2 | 2017-11-04 20:53 | MacLondon ♦215 | 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 si... | |
| 51509558 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-28 13:29 | 1 | 2017-11-02 17:46 | SK53 ♦864 | So you are also the person silently removing my bridge=footbridge tags too. Can you at the very least ask about these before changing them. |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 17:54 | Mike Baggaley | Apologies for inadvertently failing to add a comment on the occasional change. If a way has highway=footway and bridge=yes then we know it is a footbridge. | |
| 3 | 2017-11-06 10:17 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Mike,Changing "bridge=<value>" to "bridge=yes" removes descriptive information from OSM. Please don't do it. Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. | |
| 53418470 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-11-01 09:39 | 1 | 2017-11-02 09:19 | will_p ♦148 | Hi Mike,I object to the change you have made here. You have changed bridge=chain to bridge=yes. How has the data been improved by this? You appear to only be stripping out information. I don't believe there is any consensus that bridges must only be tagged with bridge=yes. bridge=chain iden... |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 09:26 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Will, the reason for doing this is that bridge=chain is not rendered as a bridge by OSM, and is not included in the list of approved values. The bridge has a note on it saying it is a chain so no information has been lost.Regards,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-11-02 13:37 | Richard ♦220 | note= tags aren't machine-readable - so in practice, moving things from a machine-readable tag to a note means that they are practically lost to all consumers.At the very least, this should have been moved to bridge:structure= rather than a note= .There is no "list of approved valu... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-02 13:39 | SK53 ♦864 | On the contrary information has been lost: changing a tag to a note is always information loss. You are changing tagging for the renderer, a practice which has been discouraged for many years. Instead you should a) file an issue with the rendering github repository and b) improve the wiki documentat... | |
| 5 | 2017-11-02 13:43 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | To be honest, as there's no highway or railway over it I'd add the "man_made=bridge" object (as a closed way) if possible.It'd donkey's years since I've been to the Priest House though, so my memory isn't up to it. | |
| 6 | 2017-11-02 15:56 | Mike Baggaley | The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges. For example, there were quite a few bridge=culvert tags which on examination mostly turned out to be waterways below roads and should not have had ... | |
| 7 | 2017-11-02 17:37 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | > The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges.Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5... | |
| 8 | 2017-11-02 17:46 | Mike Baggaley | >Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:What you have actually done there is build your list of 'approved' values :) | |
| 9 | 2017-11-02 17:50 | Richard ♦220 | > it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridgesThat's a genuine issue, but one which would be better fixed by removing the not-actually-a-bridge values than by removing the actually-a-bridge values. ;) | |
| 10 | 2017-11-02 17:53 | SK53 ♦864 | No, he's built a list of values which he finds useful. One of the main points of OSM is to allow the description of the unusual & idiosyncratic because a rigid list of approved values inevitably cannot cope. People enforcing a set of values devalues what OSM is about. For instance you have ... | |
| 11 | 2017-11-03 12:27 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Yes - what SK53 has said is correct. It's probably clearer to look at some of the other examples in the same file (barriers, shops, offices). For example, depending on the application it might make sense to render or otherwise process a cycle_barrier the same as a motorcycle_barrier or it abs... | |
| 53431171 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-11-01 18:08 | 1 | 2017-11-02 10:34 | OffTheChart ♦13 | I see you've been removing names from my hard work identifying all the types of WW2 Bunkers on Jersey. Can I ask why? From previous discussion it seems you're heavily focussed on getting the database "correct", but this is spoiling the usefullness of the standard website map. I h... |
| 2 | 2017-11-02 11:26 | OffTheChart ♦13 | Partial apologies, if you've only touched the ones named "bunker", as you've undone less of my work than I initially thought. But I still maintain that explorers using the map would be interested to see that the unspecified bunkers are indeed bunkers, as there's no other ind... | |
| 3 | 2017-11-02 16:32 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, moving the bunker information from the name field to the specific tag seemed to be improving the level of information, not 'undoing your work'. However, I did not realise that the standard OSM map doesn't render military=bunker. Ideally we should get this functionality added to t... | |
| 4 | 2017-11-02 18:06 | OffTheChart ♦13 | Thanks for your reply. If we can just leave things as they are for now, please, as that seems easier and best all around! Cheers | |
| 5 | 2021-07-31 02:12 | Lee Carré ♦665 | http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer | |
| 53201421 by AJR-GB @ 2017-10-24 08:45 | 1 | 2017-10-29 01:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset way 37132157 which is tagged as a public footpath has had foot=no set. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 01:18 | Mike Baggaley | There seem to be several other ways that also have odd looking access tags. | |
| 3 | 2017-10-31 08:12 | AJR-GB ♦3 | Thanks Mike, have updated changeset way 37132157, it is listed as a path rather than footpath but have updated foot=yes. Will review the others again this week. thanks. | |
| 4 | 2017-10-31 08:17 | Mike Baggaley | Sorry, I was unclear, I meant it has designation=public_footpath, which should imply foot=designated. | |
| 5 | 2017-10-31 08:43 | AJR-GB ♦3 | Thanks for the clarification, i will double check | |
| 53159064 by Norfolkadam @ 2017-10-22 18:37 | 1 | 2017-10-30 20:26 | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 534324576 and some adjoining ways have been created with highway=footway + access=private + foot=yes. This is leading to confusion as to whether or not you intended there to be public pedestrian access. Footways by default only allow pedestrian access. Can you please either remove access=pri... |
| 52472628 by jempi @ 2017-09-29 11:51 | 1 | 2017-10-30 19:24 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, pedestrian access on way 363788759 has been changed to permissive in this changeset. However, the way also has designation=public_footpath. and these two together are not a valid combination. Can you please checkwhich is incorrect?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-31 06:54 | jempi ♦1 | My error indeed. Met the farmer when lost the path. Nice chap! | |
| 52436837 by Stonemill1 @ 2017-09-28 09:06 | 1 | 2017-10-30 18:25 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OSM. In this change you have added access=no to way 290157585 which had highway=footway and foot=yes. This has no effect other than to make it unclear whether you intended to prevent pedestrian access but omitted to change the foot tag. For highway=footway, all other forms of transpor... |
| 48666498 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-05-14 07:37 | 1 | 2017-05-18 13:43 | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 493393332 added in this change has highway=no, which doesn't seem to be correct. Can you take a look at it?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-18 16:54 | Robert Whittaker ♦273 | 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 ... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-17 19:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Robert, there is no other way in the UK with tag highway=no, so I suggest just removing the highway tag. I have moved the Icknield Way route from this way to the actually walked path, as walking routes need to be able to be walked.Personally I'm not sure that there is much value in reco... | |
| 4 | 2017-09-19 13:26 | Robert Whittaker ♦273 | There are actually quite a few other ways tagged with highway=no in the UK: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/highway=noIf the route available on the ground is significantly different (to the point where it would be clearly incorrect to gat either one as the other), then I think both shou... | |
| 5 | 2017-10-29 17:54 | Mike Baggaley | HI Robert, apologies for the late reply - I was away on holiday. There do seem to be more ways with this tag than I had realised (most of them with your name against them). Not sure why only this one was flagged up in my map build process. I have noticed that highway=no is in the deprecated features... | |
| 6 | 2017-10-30 08:42 | Robert Whittaker ♦273 | 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 su... | |
| 51983132 by jpennycook @ 2017-09-12 19:00 | 1 | 2017-10-29 16:05 | Mike Baggaley | HI, the change to way 146988534 seems to have lost the foot/horse/bicycle tags and added motor_vehicle=seasonal. Can you please review the non vehicular access? Also, seasonal restrictions are best added using the :conditional suffix (e.g. motor_vehicle:conditional) - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.... |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 17:07 | jpennycook ♦326 | Hello Mike.Thanks for your message. I've replaced the missing access tags which I had removed incorrectly. Your message gave me an excuse to check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom again.Regarding the motor_vehicle restriction ... | |
| 3 | 2017-10-29 17:13 | jpennycook ♦326 | fixed in changesets #53347402 and #53346966 | |
| 53164508 by Bexhill-OSM @ 2017-10-22 23:12 | 1 | 2017-10-29 01:16 | Mike Baggaley | HI in this changeset way 202360158 has been tagged as foot=no, bicycle=no when it is also tagged as a public bridleway. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 11:03 | Bexhill-OSM ♦94 | Hi Mike, yes foot and bike traffic is split with horses at this point with a sign similar to this (http://news.eastsussex.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/Greenways-2.jpg).Although, I should have / now will set the bridleway to horse=designated.Thanks,Alex | |
| 3 | 2017-10-29 11:38 | Mike Baggaley | HI Alex, a public bridleway is legally open to cyclists and pedestrians, and is normally signed with the words "public bridleway". I suspect in this case, the way is probably not legally a public bridleway, in which case it should have the highway=bridleway tag, but not designation=public_... | |
| 4 | 2017-10-29 15:00 | Bexhill-OSM ♦94 | Mike,Indeed, wherever the paths run side-by-side I have put them as a single way.I was assuming because this horse only section that breaks away from the foot and bicycle path is still a Public Right of Way (see https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/leisureandtourism/countryside/rightsofway/map/map.aspx... | |
| 5 | 2017-10-29 15:39 | Mike Baggaley | HI Alex, on the map shown, the bridleway and cycleway loop are shown as dotted lines, which according to the key is a licensed/permissive bridleway and hence they are not public bridleways and should not have the designation tag at all. I'm very pleased to see a council not only providing this... | |
| 6 | 2017-10-29 15:59 | Bexhill-OSM ♦94 | Hi Mike, yes it's been an invaluable asset to finding paths around my neighbourhood to survey. They also supply a wms overlay (https://data.gov.uk/dataset/rights-of-way-not-definitive-for-east-sussex) which works great with josm.I'll remove those licensed/permissive designation tags on ... | |
| 53064943 by titocalata @ 2017-10-19 10:41 | 1 | 2017-10-28 22:45 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you review the addition of access=no to this way? I suspect that this may not be correct. Firstly it is denying pedestrian access. Secondly, the comment suggests that the road is closed due to roadworks, however, it still has psv=yes, taxi=yes (which is superfluous as taxi is included in psv... |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 11:45 | titocalata ♦1 | Hi Mike, Thanks for your comment. The road is close to all traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, busses, etc. Only work access is allowed. Do I need to change the taxi/psv/tourist bus manually or it is an easier way to do this?Thanks, | |
| 3 | 2017-10-29 15:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, yes you need to change the psv and other tags manually - I'm not aware of any other mechanism you can use. You could also consider changing to highway=construction - this would clarify the position and make it more likely that the road will have its status reverted once the roadworks are co... | |
| 52219215 by drnoble @ 2017-09-20 17:58 | 1 | 2017-10-29 01:22 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, FYI adding access=no does not have any effect on a footway that has foot=yes because the foot tag overrides the access one. If you need to show the footpath as closed, you need to change the other access tags, rather than add access=no. Can you please review your change?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 12:06 | drnoble ♦49 | Thanks Mike, I assume you mean for routing foot=yes overrides access=no. Are you suggesting that I should change the bicycle=yes and foot=yes tags? Should these also be set to no, or removed? | |
| 3 | 2017-10-29 15:10 | Mike Baggaley | Yes foot=* overrides access=*. If the path is closed, and is going to be for quite some time, then I would not add the access tag at all, but would change the foot and bicycle tags to no, and add a note to say this is a temporary closure and giving some idea of the reopening date. Alternatively, the... | |
| 53092143 by michaelvipond @ 2017-10-20 09:11 | 1 | 2017-10-29 10:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to open Street Map. Can you clarify whether way 533758452 is a reservoir or a pond, as you seem to have tagged it as name=Reservoir + water=pond. Please remove the name tag unless the water has a real name. If it is a reservoir, use water=reservoir. Happy mapping,Mike |
| 52696816 by Wm S @ 2017-10-06 23:07 | 1 | 2017-10-29 10:39 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point: when adding features you need to choose the appropriate tagging, rather than just naming them. The name tag should only be used to add a proper noun. For example, a tennis court should be tagged as leisure=pitch + sport=tennis rather than name=tenni... |
| 52981902 by Pete Owens @ 2017-10-16 13:03 | 1 | 2017-10-29 00:25 | Mike Baggaley | HI, way 175638841 has access=no, but has the North Cheshire Way along it. Can you check whether it is open to pedestrians?Thanks,Mike |
| 53178122 by etgg @ 2017-10-23 12:57 | 1 | 2017-10-29 00:18 | Mike Baggaley | HI, is Tot Hill an alternative name for Leech Lane on way 534545565? If so, it should go in alt_name, rather than in brackets after the name. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 52470841 by smb1001 @ 2017-09-29 10:30 | 1 | 2017-10-29 00:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, are Clare Bank and Dere Street alternative names for the same road? If so, name should be set to one of them and alt_name to the other. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-31 14:22 | smb1001 ♦36 | I've had a look at other sources and relabelled the route from Whittonstall to Ebchester. Dere Street is the name of the Roman Road so only applies to the parts that intersect with the road. Chare Bank is the official name in Ebchester, but I can't see if it extends beyond the bridge. | |
| 3 | 2017-11-06 10:24 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | So should e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4045056 be renamed back to Chare Bank? It's a few years since I drove up there, but I don't remember seeing any Dere Street signage (though it's memorable as a "long and straight road").Best Regards,Andy | |
| 4 | 2017-11-06 10:42 | smb1001 ♦36 | The Ordnance Survey only lists the name Chare Bank in Ebchester itself - well before it reaches the bridge. It then lists B6309 after that. In addition it gives the name as Fine Lane when it turns north temporarily. On the straight part from there to Whittonstall it calls it Dere Street and B6309. A... | |
| 52907374 by Dkeith @ 2017-10-13 19:20 | 1 | 2017-10-23 07:26 | BCNorwich ♦4,851 | Hi, I noticed that this road section you added to the database :- "Way: Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (532376490)" is a duplication of the existing way. |
| 2 | 2017-10-23 12:51 | Dkeith ♦1 | apologies. still learning.Thinks the road is on a slight different path.road is still covered in cones.If you could fix i would be obliged | |
| 3 | 2017-10-23 16:56 | BCNorwich ♦4,851 | No problem, the duplicate section is now removed.I'm still learning after several years mapping, OSM is continuously evolving so there's always something new. If I can help at all please just ask. Regards Bernard | |
| 4 | 2017-10-29 00:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I know you didn't add the name, but name=C5K doesn't look like a real name. Should this be loc_name="C5K Banchory-Devenick Road" instead?Cheers,Mike | |
| 5 | 2017-10-29 07:45 | BCNorwich ♦4,851 | Hi Mike Baggaley,You are correct, it wasn't me and yes it seems wrong.I looked up Aberdeenshire list of streets ( http://publications.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/dataset/c993f625-37ad-438a-bd28-5afe7ca6a5bc/resource/58d8fd38-2b20-45dd-9f1b-71ce210bba3a/download/south-highways-list.pdf )which ind... | |
| 53186451 by tomrobin29 @ 2017-10-23 18:11 | 1 | 2017-10-28 23:12 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify whether way 534612905 (Buckleigh Road) is the B3236? If so, the road should be secondary rather than tertiary. Can you please either remove the ref or change the highway to tertiary?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 08:23 | tomrobin29 ♦1 | Hi MikeI didn’t create the information or the way, I have only added a tag for the speed limits. But I shall have a look. | |
| 52997393 by chessrat @ 2017-10-16 22:51 | 1 | 2017-10-28 23:08 | Mike Baggaley | HI I see that way 230135072 and adjoining have been downgraded from primary to tertiary, apparently following the opening of a bypass. If this is correct, please remove the A6136 ref. If this is still the A6136, please return to primary. The adjoining trunk link way also looks suspect as trunk links... |
| 52478086 by Rick Wiles @ 2017-09-29 15:18 | 1 | 2017-10-28 22:31 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think some of the tags on this guided busway need to be checked.Firstly, the name Guided Busway seems to be unlikely to be the real name, it seems to be more like a description. If there is no real name, the name tag should be left empty.Secondly, construction=guided_busway + highway=r... |
| 52679481 by ACS1986 @ 2017-10-06 10:49 | 1 | 2017-10-28 22:21 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I think way 530512895 should have vehicle=no rather than access=no unless there is specifically a pedestrian prohibition. Can you check?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-10-29 07:32 | ACS1986 ♦61 | Hi Mike No need to check; it is definitely a vehicular restriction not a pedestrian one. I've changed the tag. Good luck to any pedestrians brave enough to walk through the middle of the road junction!Kind regards,Adam | |
| 51880258 by fcrump @ 2017-09-09 13:37 | 1 | 2017-09-11 13:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, High Weald Landscape Trail is the name of a route, and the individual paths making up the route should not have this name. YThe ways already have a route relation with this name attached. Although these routes are not shown on the standard OSM map, you can see them on waymarkedtrails.orgPlease... |
| 2 | 2017-09-16 10:53 | fcrump ♦1 | Mike, I have looked at this and given it some thought. I initially added names to paths as some were already there and I found it useful to be able to trace the route on OSM. I notice that you have removed a lot of names from long distance trails and in some cases people have re-added them as presum... | |
| 3 | 2017-09-16 11:46 | fcrump ♦1 | Mike, Following further investigation, I accept that ways should not generally be named with the route they are on. It's a shame the standard rendering of OSM does not display the name of the route, and there is no generally available 'hiking' OSM map. | |
| 4 | 2017-09-16 13:30 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Frazer, the hiking.waymarkedtrails.org map is the OSM hiking map intended for hiking. It uses the underlying OSM data and shows the hiking and walking routes on it. I'm not sure if there are any other differences - the rendering of most things looks to be extremely similar.Cheers,Mike | |
| 51872110 by will_p @ 2017-09-09 08:22 | 1 | 2017-09-11 13:55 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Will, I see you have changed tunnel=yes to tunnel=underpass. I can find no mention of tunnel=underpass as an approved value in the wiki, and the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Subway indicates that tunnel=yes is the correct value. Can you please explain why you think tunnel=underpass... |
| 2 | 2017-09-11 15:05 | will_p ♦148 | 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�... | |
| 51889816 by Ted Pottage @ 2017-09-09 19:47 | 1 | 2017-09-11 13:43 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Ted, I notice that in adding way 523019758, you have tagged it as a building with a name of Church. To add a church, please use amenity=place_of_worship and religion=christian. If the building is no longer used as a church, the best tagging is to use building=church instead.Regards,Mike |
| 51881014 by TJS @ 2017-09-09 14:09 | 1 | 2017-09-11 13:39 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, why do you think a descriptive name is required? We know it is a windmill from its tagging. Name tags should be proper nouns, such as "Skidby Windmill". If the feature has no name or it is not known, it should be left blank. Please see the "Name is the name only" section at h... |
| 2 | 2017-09-11 14:17 | TJS ♦4 | 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.... | |
| 51765288 by Chay Farzaneh @ 2017-09-05 23:02 | 1 | 2017-09-07 11:10 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review the access=no tag on way 454033061 - I would expect this should be either motor_vehicle=no if cyclists are allowed along or vehicle=no otherwise (i.e. allowing pedestrians).Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-09-07 12:31 | Chay Farzaneh ♦1 | Hi Sorry did this in a rush I've allowed foot and bicycles now. ThanksChay | |
| 51586499 by Ascent @ 2017-08-30 16:36 | 1 | 2017-08-31 13:06 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on footway 520047037, access=private and foot=yes are both set, leading to confusion about whether you intended the pedestrian access to be private (in which case it would be better to remove foot=yes) or not (in which case it would be better to remove access=private). Also, adjoining way 520045... |
| 51535192 by wiggly @ 2017-08-29 10:12 | 1 | 2017-08-30 09:58 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see you seem to be undecided how to tag several nodes with names like GNB sniper. Please do not tag them with incorrect data just to get them to show on the OSM map. I'm guessing GNB is ground nesting bird - if these are bird hides, then I suggest using leisure=bird_hide. Please also avoi... |
| 51544076 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-29 13:34 | 1 | 2017-08-29 19:50 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Why didn't you add the correct church title? |
| 2 | 2017-08-29 19:55 | Mike Baggaley | HI Dave, I didn't know what the proper name was.Regards,Mike | |
| 51486639 by Ashton Fairfield @ 2017-08-27 16:39 | 1 | 2017-08-28 12:37 | Mike Baggaley | HI, is way 519115289 actually named Draycott Terrace Back Access the name seems more like a description? Also, maxspeed=>5 looks as if it might be a typo.Regards,Mike |
| 51387341 by ABZ_OSM @ 2017-08-23 20:07 | 1 | 2017-08-24 20:10 | Mike Baggaley | HI, we already know that the pitches are tennis and football from the sport tag. Please do not add descriptive names like "tennis court" or "football pitch". The name field should only be used to add proper nouns such as "Aberporth Tennis Club".Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-24 20:30 | ABZ_OSM ♦7 | 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 anywher... | |
| 51376741 by krd_mapper @ 2017-08-23 14:00 | 1 | 2017-08-24 17:25 | Mike Baggaley | HI I realise you have simply split part of the Black Brook Way footpath to add a bridge, but assume you have some knowledge of the area. This path has foot=public on each segment, which is not a valid value. Are you in a position to correct this?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-24 18:34 | krd_mapper ♦3 | Thanks Mike. Yes, I work for Charnwood Borough Council so am familiar with the area. Well spotted on the footpath tags, I'll sort them out when I get a chance. Regards...Kev | |
| 51362866 by John Grubb @ 2017-08-23 06:17 | 1 | 2017-08-24 17:21 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on ways 77513243 and 77513309 you seem to have added access=no and set motor_vehicle=official. "Official" is not an approved value - I think the correct values should be access not set and motor_vehicle=no. If you set access=no this also denies access to pedestrians and cyclists. If cy... |
| 2 | 2017-10-21 18:28 | John Grubb ♦40 | 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 vehic... | |
| 51384849 by kevjs1982 @ 2017-08-23 18:48 | 1 | 2017-08-24 17:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I'm guessing that this change is intended to remove access due to redevelopment of the bus station, with a number of ways having access=no added. However, where there are specific transport modes specified, these override access=no, so for example footways 16535485 and 169581775 which have ... |
| 51343006 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-22 13:38 | 1 | 2017-08-23 17:28 | sdoerr ♦71 | Should node 528921324 be leisure=pitch? |
| 2 | 2017-08-23 17:31 | Mike Baggaley | Oops, yes. Will correct! Thanks for letting me know.Cheers,Mike | |
| 3 | 2017-08-23 17:43 | sdoerr ♦71 | Glad to be of service! However, I think you have now accidentally overwritten 'sport' with 'fix typo', presumably intended as a changeset comment.Steve | |
| 4 | 2017-08-23 18:20 | Mike Baggaley | Doh! Give me a brain. Hopefully correct now. | |
| 51289958 by digitalbyron @ 2017-08-21 04:11 | 1 | 2017-08-22 13:32 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to Open Street Map. Just a small point - when adding features you need to specify the details of the feature rather than setting a name. For a post box, set amenity=post_box (and do not name it as Post Box, only name if it has a proper name). I have changed this one.Happy mapping,M... |
| 51286306 by markbeverley @ 2017-08-20 20:51 | 1 | 2017-08-22 13:17 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see you have added access=no to footway 223062606, which also has foot=permissive. If you intended this to mean that there should be no pedestrian access, then you need to remove foot=permissive which overrides access=no. If you intended this to mean that there is no other access than foot, th... |
| 2 | 2017-10-03 15:48 | markbeverley ♦3 | Hi Mike, thanks for the info. I have updated the relevant paths - feel free to check. They are National Trust footpaths so permissive and foot only. | |
| 51149076 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-08-15 18:47 | 1 | 2017-08-17 10:23 | chillly ♦819 | The name on the board above the shop front is 'Chemist'. I surveyed it and it is still so.Please don't just armchair this stuff - check first!I will revert your change. |
| 2 | 2017-08-17 10:36 | Mike Baggaley | The name is not Chemist, it is P. Rowbotham Dispensing Chemist according to http://www.nhs.uk/Services/pharmacies/Overview/DefaultView.aspx?id=5007. | |
| 3 | 2017-08-17 11:07 | chillly ♦819 | The name on the shop says 'Chemist'. I know that because I have been there. You cannot use copyright sources to update the name. I will revert your change and ask the DWG to intervene if you use copyright sources in OSM again. | |
| 4 | 2017-08-17 11:09 | Mike Baggaley | You will find his name is also on the front of the shop. | |
| 5 | 2017-08-17 11:10 | chillly ♦819 | Which is why I added the name as the operator. | |
| 6 | 2017-08-17 11:19 | Mike Baggaley | I suggest in the spirit of compromise the name be set to either P Rowbotham Chemist. or just P Rowbotham. The name of the business is clearly not Chemist. | |
| 7 | 2017-08-17 11:27 | Mike Baggaley | I also note that the NHS Choices data is made available under the Open Government Licence - see http://www.nhs.uk/aboutNHSChoices/aboutnhschoices/how-we-perform/Pages/datasets.aspx. | |
| 8 | 2017-08-17 11:33 | chillly ♦819 | Wow, just how far are you going with this?Read the link again. DOWNLOADED files are OGL, the web page you directed me to is copyright. I doubt anyone in the NHS would care, but you were prepared to use a copyright source before you then checked to try to climb out of the hole you just dug. J... | |
| 51116574 by jim197 @ 2017-08-14 17:09 | 1 | 2017-08-15 14:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 515616161 you have set access=residents. Please use access=private for roads that can only be accessed by residents. "private" will be interpreted by routing software as it is a standard value, whereas "residents" will be ignored as it is non-standard. You could add a ... |
| 2 | 2017-08-15 14:19 | jim197 ♦5 | Fair enough. I only used it because it was an option offered by iD. I will switch to 'private'.Jim | |
| 3 | 2017-08-15 15:01 | Mike Baggaley | Interesting, I hadn't realised it was an option in iD (I can't get on with it). I see there was a proposal to add access=resident (not access=residents) back in 2011, but it was never adopted.Mike | |
| 4 | 2017-08-15 15:12 | jim197 ♦5 | 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 t... | |
| 51118678 by Russ McD @ 2017-08-14 18:28 | 1 | 2017-08-15 14:10 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Russ, in this change you seem to have added access=designated to way 324329569. This is an invalid value for access= and should only be used for specific transport modes such as foot=designated for a public footpath. As the road leads to a caravan site, I would expect that it should be access=pri... |
| 2 | 2017-08-15 21:29 | Russ McD ♦223 | Thanks Mike,Yes, my mistake - the Potlatch hint was a bit confusing and after reading the Wiki, have changed it to Private as you suggest.Rgds. | |
| 51075572 by Setithing @ 2017-08-13 08:49 | 1 | 2017-08-14 11:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 515159066 added in this change has rather confusing access tags. It is a footway, so by default the only access it has is for pedestrians. Tag access=no has been set, which changes pedestrian access to no and has no other effect. It also has foot=designated which enables pedestrian access ag... |
| 2 | 2017-08-14 18:03 | Setithing ♦1 | Hello,Sorry for that. I have amended the tags and added the fix me as you suggested. There is more mapping of foot paths to be done which is why it stops. I will avoid not joining footpaths in the future.Thank you for letting me know.Tom | |
| 51027821 by PeterPan99 @ 2017-08-11 09:56 | 1 | 2017-08-13 22:04 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please do not name highways with names such as Bridge 85A. This is incorrect. Firstly 85A is not a name, it is a reference. Secondly, the reference for a bridge goes in the bridge:ref field and the bridge name goes in bridge:name so that the road name can be correctly shown in the name field.\... |
| 2 | 2017-08-14 09:58 | PeterPan99 ♦43 | Hi Mike,If I delete the names (in the case of footbridges) and revert to the road names (for roads), how do I make the Bridge Ref display on the standard view of the map, please?I only started adding / changing the names to get them to display and to give consistency after I saw some with no nam... | |
| 3 | 2017-08-14 10:38 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Peter, I believe you are correct that bridge:ref is not rendered on the standard OSM map (the bridges in question had bridge_ref which was an older convention). However, incorrect data should not be set simply to get the standard map to display something in a particular way. You may be interested... | |
| 51059042 by Pink Duck @ 2017-08-12 13:58 | 1 | 2017-08-13 21:48 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review your change of way 59136283 which has removed motor_vehicle=no and replaced it with access=no. This change denies pedestrian access and bicycle access and I believe there are no such restrictions on this road.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-14 06:43 | Pink Duck ♦151 | Good spot, seems I tagged that erroneously thinking it was only bus/taxis/cycle but the restrictive sign is indeed just for motor vehicles. | |
| 50943658 by msevilla00 @ 2017-08-08 13:01 | 1 | 2017-08-08 13:36 | msevilla00 ♦136 | I edited using this overpass query:http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qSrand following this OSM Wiki advice:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Walesand as you could see in Streets:https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/BVAjyV5Yt6hediIk7Lqv4w |
| 2 | 2017-08-09 16:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, it is incorrect to a set the name field in the format "Welsh Name/English Name". If a name has two language variants, use name:cy for the Welsh and name:en for the English, and choose one of the two names for the name field, preferably the one which is the more commonly used. Many of t... | |
| 3 | 2017-08-09 21:57 | msevilla00 ♦136 | I disagree with you.If you please read the wiki you will read how to tag in multilingual situations.First, "name" tag could be use as you can see in street sings [1]. You can check on Mapillary how are labelled [2][3]Second, "Welsh name / English name" label for "... | |
| 4 | 2017-08-09 22:45 | msevilla00 ♦136 | I traslated this topic to the mailining list for General discussion for users in Great Britain:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-August/020465.htmlPlease, consider to joint the conversation there to argue within the British community.Cheers | |
| 5 | 2017-08-09 22:57 | alejandroscf ♦40 | Hi! I agree with Miguel, if the official name is both Welsh and English it's OK to set the name to "Welsh Name/English Name" and also tag it with the correct localized tags.Best regards,Alejandroscf | |
| 6 | 2017-08-10 06:22 | escada ♦168 | I cannot comment on the specific situation in Wales, but in Brussels, Belgium we have a similar situation. All streets have a Dutch and a French name. Neither one is more important than the other. We use name:fr - name:nl in the name field. Although we accept to opposite order as well.We even have... | |
| 7 | 2017-08-10 11:48 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Whilst in the past I have generally used the first name on the sign (usually name:cy) as name I am coming around to this way of thinking so do not disagree with the changes made by Miguel.The norm in Wales is to have both names on the sign, much like in Brussels, even in Maelor Saesneg / English... | |
| 8 | 2017-08-10 16:54 | RobJN ♦77 | 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 wel... | |
| 9 | 2017-08-10 17:08 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | " / " is used throughout Wales in these cases and therefore has usage and momentum.It is the one I would favour as it is clearly a separator. A hyphen could be easily confused. | |
| 10 | 2017-08-10 19:38 | Mike Baggaley | Quoting from the Wales tagging guidelines, at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names "As such, I reckon that you should set the name tag to the Welsh name in areas where the Welsh language has a high concentration of native speakers, and use name:en for the English name in such ... | |
| 11 | 2017-08-14 20:36 | msevilla00 ♦136 | Hello again,If you came now to this discussion you may notice something happens in the wiki. A British user changed it after the discussion in the talk-gb mailing list:https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-August/020493.htmlI disagree with the change and I consider it arbi... | |
| 50462834 by JamesKingdom @ 2017-07-21 16:08 | 1 | 2017-08-09 21:52 | Mike Baggaley | Hi James, can you check the post office you added (node 4985231337) in this changeset? I believe the one in High Street closed in 2016 - perhaps it is a sorting office?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-09 22:12 | JamesKingdom ♦98 | Hi Mike,I think it too may have closed, but there must have been something there for me to add it from my visit.I plan to revisit hopefully in the next few days, and I will check then.Thanks,James | |
| 50941036 by the1simon @ 2017-08-08 11:11 | 1 | 2017-08-09 16:50 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, footway 6233340 has had access=no added in this change. However, as the way has foot=yes, access=no has no effect. I suggest either removing foot=yes or removing access=no and setting foot=no if the footway is closed.Regards,Mike |
| 50888347 by SomeoneElse @ 2017-08-06 15:35 | 1 | 2017-08-07 13:06 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is way 342863745 really named Bus Link? If this is not a proper name, please remove it. If it is, I suggest adding a note to say it really is the name.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-07 13:28 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | Yes, it really is called that. | |
| 50804704 by smb1001 @ 2017-08-03 10:54 | 1 | 2017-08-04 14:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi in ways 512562914, 512562912 and 512562910 you have specified access=designated. This is not a valid value. You should only put designated for individual transport modes, e.g. for a public footpath you need to put foot=designated (and ideally designation=public_footpath as well).Regards,Mik... |
| 50427634 by Mauls @ 2017-07-20 09:43 | 1 | 2017-08-03 15:12 | Mike Baggaley | HI, in this changeset you appear to have named way 63944394 as "Recreation Ground", which seems more like a description of where it leads. Is this road really named that? If so, I suggest adding a note to say it is really the name, otherwise, please delete the name.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-08-03 15:19 | Mike Baggaley | Also way 63944395 has been named Rifle Range - I suggest Shrivenham Smallbore Rifle Club, if that is what it is (I don't know where it is located) and add sport=shooting. | |
| 50777984 by DaveF @ 2017-08-02 11:11 | 1 | 2017-08-03 11:40 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Dave, I see that on way 34060947 (public footpath) you have set access=no. Did you intend this to say that the footpath is closed? If so, you need to remove foot=yes, which overrides access=no, and preferably add a note to say why it is closed and for how long. If not, please remove access=no as ... |
| 50746415 by hudster @ 2017-08-01 09:53 | 1 | 2017-08-02 11:59 | Mike Baggaley | Hi on way 249832140, you seem to have tagged the access in a rather unusual way, setting access=bus, access_1=taxi , and access_2=cycle, with motor_vehicle=yes. If you intended to say that this is open to bus, taxi, cycles (and pedestrians), but not other traffic, you need to remove all three access... |
| 50619030 by Neil Bauers @ 2017-07-27 12:40 | 1 | 2017-07-29 11:30 | Mike Baggaley | HI Neil, Village Hall Parking and Village Hall Access do not sound like proper names to me, more like descriptions. I suggest removing the names and adding an area of parking to show where the parking takes place.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-30 21:24 | Neil Bauers ♦2 | I have done as you suggested. Thanks for the hint. | |
| 50598533 by arthursan @ 2017-07-26 19:24 | 1 | 2017-07-27 16:02 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, newly created footways 510547164, 510545824, 510545789 and 510544174 all have access=no and foot=yes. Whilst this combination is not invalid, it does lead to confusion. As the access=no is overridden by foot=yes for pedestrians, and no other transport method is by default allowed for a footway, ... |
| 50571525 by All Good Things @ 2017-07-25 22:08 | 1 | 2017-07-27 15:48 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, "Network Rail Access Track" on way 510311871 sounds more like a description than a name. Can you please review and remove the name tag if this is not the actual name of the track?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-28 23:28 | All Good Things ♦4 | Your quite right, I've removed the name | |
| 50599014 by Gabriel Reynolds @ 2017-07-26 19:41 | 1 | 2017-07-27 15:45 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I believe there are no restrictions on cyclists and pedestrians using this bus lane, so motor_vehicle=no rather than access=no was the correct tagging. Can you please review and revert if you agree?Thanks,Mike |
| 50454133 by krd_mapper @ 2017-07-21 10:03 | 1 | 2017-07-24 16:04 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on new way 509205424, you have specified foot=public. This is not a valid value. Did you intend foot=designated or foot=yes?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-26 19:55 | krd_mapper ♦3 | Hi Mike. I think 509205424 was created when I split an existing way. It appears that the ways along this cycle-way were created about 10 years ago and they all seem to have the same tag foot=public. Was this a valid value at the time of capture? Cheers...Kev | |
| 3 | 2017-07-27 06:18 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Kev, I've only been a mapper for about 5 years, so am not sure about whether it used to be a valid value.Regards,Mike | |
| 4 | 2017-07-27 06:28 | krd_mapper ♦3 | I'll look at other similar ways in the area and make the corrections along this route.Cheers...Kev | |
| 50532815 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-07-24 16:07 | 1 | 2017-07-24 20:29 | paulbiv ♦12 | The wiki has access=no as a valid tag. Removing access=no needs survey evidence that access is permitted (It's BAe land). |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 21:21 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, the other two tags removed were invalid and are the reason I edited the way. The existing foot=yes tag already says that pedestrian access is allowed. As a footway does not allow any other access by default, the access=no is not changing the access for any other transport mode, and is overridden... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-24 21:28 | paulbiv ♦12 | I'll take a look next time I'm over that way. Edge of defence related land could easily have a footpath inside the fence, and users could easily tag that as foot=yes without realising that implies public access. | |
| 4 | 2017-07-24 21:31 | Mike Baggaley | Excellent, we'll know for certain then. Thanks. | |
| 50510653 by nickjohnston @ 2017-07-23 20:22 | 1 | 2017-07-24 15:59 | Mike Baggaley | HI I see you have added access=private to way 442664037, but this also has foot=yes and as it is a footway, the access tag is overridden by the foot tag for pedestrians and hence has no effect other than to cause confusion. If you intended all access to be private, please remove the foot=yes tag or ... |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 18:23 | nickjohnston ♦45 | Hi. The finer points of this type of tagging are still not that clear to me so thanks for your explanation. The path in question is private property belonging to Gloucestershire-Warwickshire Railway, so I've removed foot=yes. | |
| 50464904 by kevjs1982 @ 2017-07-21 17:52 | 1 | 2017-07-24 15:54 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have added access=no to ways 16533193 and 16533219. These are footways and have foot=permissive on them, so access=no has no effect other than to cause confusion as to what was intended. If you intended there to be no pedestrian access, please remove foot=permissive, otherwise, please ... |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 16:13 | SomeoneElse ♦13,368 | @Mike For info see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50175156 and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Broadmarsh_Re-development - it's very much a work in progress at the moment. | |
| 44492399 by user_5121 @ 2016-12-18 14:06 | 1 | 2017-07-19 13:43 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this changeset, ways 84367714 and 84367782 have had their pedestrian access removed. However, they appear to have regional walking route Lea Valley Walk running along them. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-19 16:53 | user_5121 ♦11 | 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 si... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-20 16:16 | Mike Baggaley | H, thanks for the info. I have moved the Lea Valley Walk to go along the public footpath.Cheers,Mike | |
| 50409811 by Buschebabau @ 2017-07-19 15:46 | 1 | 2017-07-20 12:47 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see that on way 177305478 (steps up to lighthouse) you have added access=designated. This is not a valid value for access - did you intend foot=designated (i.e. a public footpath)? I also note that the adjoining paths have motor_vehicle=designated (not added by you) which seems an unlikely val... |
| 2 | 2017-07-20 15:57 | Buschebabau ♦2 | Hi Mike,I have now changed motor_vehicle=designated to motor_vehicle=no and removed access=designated, because i don't know whether the steps up to the lighthouse are accessible to the public. Thanks for informing me!Buschebabau | |
| 50383045 by Neil Bauers @ 2017-07-18 15:46 | 1 | 2017-07-20 12:40 | Mike Baggaley | HI, I see that on way 88266262 (track), you have changed foot from designated to no. However, the way has designation=public_footpath. Can you please either remove designation (if the way is not a public footpath) or revert foot to designated (it is is a public footpath).Thanks,Mike |
| 38194942 by RichBoyce @ 2016-03-31 10:54 | 1 | 2017-07-19 13:17 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I know it is some time ago, when you added bicycle access to way 32455409, but are pedestrians also allowed on it (it is unusual for access to be granted to cycles but not pedestrians)?Can you review?Thanks,Mike |
| 50269033 by abc26324 @ 2017-07-13 21:48 | 1 | 2017-07-17 15:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Please note the The Ridgeway is the name of the long distance route, and individual paths segments should not have this name.Regards,Mike |
| 48559724 by Owain Griff @ 2017-05-10 11:49 | 1 | 2017-07-16 09:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have named way 487976636 as Private Right of Way - this does not look like a name to me. It can't be both private and a right of way anyway, as far as I know. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-24 21:14 | Owain Griff ♦3 | Thanks Mike, you are of course correct. It is a public right of way. Silly mistake. I will change and review if if I have made similar mistakes elsewhere. Thanks for feedback. | |
| 47013747 by Glucosamine @ 2017-03-20 14:01 | 1 | 2017-07-16 07:50 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 481595220 you have set foot=definitive and horse=definitive. These are not standard values - did you intend designated rather than definitive (i.e. is this a public bridleway)?Cheers,Mike |
| 50212838 by abc26324 @ 2017-07-11 21:04 | 1 | 2017-07-13 16:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, to add vehicular seasonal access, you need to use a combination of motor_vehicle=yes/no and motor_vehicle:conditional=yes/no @ (condition) - you can find details at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hoursCheers,... |
| 50204049 by DaveF @ 2017-07-11 14:48 | 1 | 2017-07-13 16:47 | Mike Baggaley | HI Dave, on way 56463013, you have added foot=yes to a way that has access=private and highway=footway. This can lead to confusion over whether access for walking is intended to be private or public. As this is appears to be a path to a school and terminates in a gate, it might be best to remove acc... |
| 2 | 2017-07-13 21:11 | DaveF ♦1,563 | Agreed - Done. | |
| 50102946 by robw @ 2017-07-07 08:58 | 1 | 2017-07-13 15:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is way 505783393 actually named (Old) Clay Lane, or is this descriptive? If the latter, then please use either name=Clay Lane if it is still called that, or old_name=Clay Lane if it is no longer the name.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-13 16:34 | robw ♦10 | Source docs at http://www.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/content.asp?id=28112&nav=838&parent_directory_id=646 are unclear. Will removed the (Old) for now and add a note. | |
| 50232258 by Steve Mapping @ 2017-07-12 14:26 | 1 | 2017-07-13 11:49 | Mike Baggaley | Hi please note that paths should not be named with the name of a route such as Cotswold Way - this is the name of a route, rather than the name of the individual paths making up the route. There is already a relation for the Cotswold Way route and this has many paths as members. Walking, cycling rou... |
| 49995393 by Martin Wynne @ 2017-07-02 22:33 | 1 | 2017-07-04 13:40 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on ways 504628768 and 504628767 which are tagged as highway=footway (i.e. only pedestrian access is expected to be allowed), you have included access=private and foot=yes giving rise to confusion as to whether you meant the foot access to be private or allowed. It should not be necessary to set ... |
| 2 | 2017-07-04 14:24 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi Mike,Thanks for your message. This is Forestry Commision land, which means that under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 it is "Access Land" with the right to roam on foot anywhere except within 20 metres of a dwelling (unless on a public right of way). The distinction betwe... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-04 14:55 | Mike Baggaley | HI Martin, I wasn't questioning whether bikes have access, I was asking about the foot access because the combination of access=private and foot=yes on a footway gives rise to confusion as to whether the foot access is allowed or private (because although the foot tag overrides the access one, ... | |
| 4 | 2017-07-04 15:24 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi Mike,You have rather lost me. The land is private, owned by the Forestry Commission. There is no public right of way on these footpaths. There are on Access Land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. That means the landowner can under certain circumstances temporarily close the ar... | |
| 5 | 2017-07-04 15:48 | Mike Baggaley | Sorry to have confused you. I'm not planning to walk them (at least at present) - I build my own Garmin GB map from OSM data, and my build process flagged up a warning on these ways about conflicting access tags. If you put access=private on a footway, that means the path cannot be used by the ... | |
| 6 | 2017-07-04 16:36 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | 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 show... | |
| 7 | 2017-07-04 16:49 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | 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 o... | |
| 50010699 by RichardBeilby @ 2017-07-03 14:19 | 1 | 2017-07-04 13:27 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Richard, the change to King Street has resulted in pedestrian access being disallowed. I assume this should not be the case. I suggest removing the access=no value.Regards,Mike |
| 49782617 by confusedbuffalo @ 2017-06-23 22:27 | 1 | 2017-07-02 14:57 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, this change to Leazes Bowl appears to have replaced the roundabout we can see on the aerial imagery view with a new junction. The tag junction=roundabout is still in existence on some of the ways, but it no longer looks like a roundabout. Should these tags be removed?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-02 15:38 | confusedbuffalo ♦332 | I was unsure whether to leave them or not. The sign for the junction as you go west on the A690 towards it still shows it as a roundabout (it seems to be the same sign that was there before the junction update), and it does behave somewhat like a roundabout with traffic lights | |
| 3 | 2017-07-02 22:58 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks, I have had a look at the plans, and I it looks like it is still a roundabout, however, I have removed the roundabout tag from the western second loop so that there is now just a single loop tagged as a roundabout, and rounded the corners slightly. | |
| 49732347 by zorque @ 2017-06-21 22:53 | 1 | 2017-07-02 16:45 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, on way 502498679 which has highway=footway, you have set access=private and foot=designated. This combination causes confusion, as the only access on a footway by default is foot, making it unclear whether foot traffic is intended to be private or not. If the footway can be used by private indiv... |
| 2 | 2017-07-02 22:21 | zorque ♦14 | Hi, the tagging is actually carried forward from the footway at the western end which I extended. From the top of my head I can't remember any restrictions. It looked more like a usual public footpath. No vehicle traffic possible anyways,Marc | |
| 3 | 2017-07-02 22:28 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks, I have removed access=private for the length of the path. Further on it is tagged as a track, for which access=private is more likely to be correct, so I have left it in place on that section.Mike | |
| 49835232 by Craig_Bewerley @ 2017-06-26 12:37 | 1 | 2017-07-02 16:50 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in way 503361824, you have specified access=no, foot=designated on a way with highway=footway. It is unclear from this whether the way was intended to have pedestrian access or not, as although the foot tag overrides the access tag for pedestrians, many mappers do not realise this and just add ... |
| 49896014 by lakedistrict @ 2017-06-28 16:13 | 1 | 2017-07-02 16:37 | Mike Baggaley | HI, you seem to have added access=no to Gooseholme Bridge, with a note that it was closed when surveyed. However, as the way has foot=yes, the access=no has no effect on pedestrians, which is the only form of transport normally enabled for a footway. I suggest removing the foot tag if this bridge is... |
| 2 | 2017-07-04 11:05 | lakedistrict ♦308 | Hi Mike, Thanks for this advice, I've now removed the foot=yes tag since it isn't required on highway=footway and currently the bridge is closed to all. | |
| 49781788 by Platinum @ 2017-06-23 21:23 | 1 | 2017-07-02 11:57 | Mike Baggaley | H Platinum, in this change you seem to have named a number of ways as Thames Path. This name is the name of the route running along the path, not the name of the individual paths, and the Thames Path route is already defined. OpenStreetMap does not display route names, but you can find the Thames Pa... |
| 49697428 by Martin Wynne @ 2017-06-20 15:46 | 1 | 2017-07-02 11:51 | Mike Baggaley | HI Martin, in this and a preceding change you appear to have set a number of ways with ref A4420. If a road has an A ref, it needs to be set to highway=primary or trunk. Can you please review and update as appropriate?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-07-02 13:15 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi Mike,As I understand it, that applies to 3-figure A roads, not necessarily 4-figure roads?This is a newly constructed road through a new housing development still under construction (on the site of a former sugar factory). I was surprised to see it given an A number - having driven along it I... | |
| 49392264 by peregrination @ 2017-06-09 09:48 | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:46 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, following this change, way 67384694 has highway=footway, access=private and foot=yes. As the default access for a footway is to only allow pedestrian access, it is unclear whether this combination is intended to mean foot=private or foot=yes. If the former, can you please remove the access tag. ... |
| 2 | 2017-06-21 10:02 | peregrination ♦23 | Thanks Mike, these footways aren't private (I cycled on them 2 weeks ago), I've just removed the private access tags and merged them with the other footways in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49715940You could add access=yes if you wish, not sure if it's needed. | |
| 3 | 2017-06-21 12:56 | Mike Baggaley | Thanks. Adding access=yes would actually imply that all other transport modes can also use the path, so not a good idea.Regards,Mike | |
| 49633855 by davidearl @ 2017-06-18 12:11 | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:18 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you please clarify why the name Haul Road is enclosed in brackets - roads are not normally named like this?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-21 12:35 | davidearl ♦11 | 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 w... | |
| 3 | 2017-06-21 12:53 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this is a local name to refer to the road, then I suggest that the best approach would be to put loc_name=Haul Road and leave the name field blank. This clearly identifies it as a local name. Only proper nouns should be used as names, and they use upper case for first letters (in the UK). | |
| 4 | 2017-06-21 13:04 | davidearl ♦11 | Well if it makes you feel better, feel free to change it. Personally I think that's unnecessarily pedantic. In any case, the road will be gone within a year (all being well). | |
| 49388021 by GeoffJones @ 2017-06-09 07:11 | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:38 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you please review the change you have made to way 34603346 which appears to be illogical. The change has added access=no to a footpath (the only access allowed on a footpath by default is foot) and changed foot=designated to foot=yes. The way also has designation=public_footpath, so the prev... |
| 49534771 by Harry Wood @ 2017-06-14 16:46 | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:24 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I note that changing to access=no has disallowed pedestrian access, but the Trans Penning Trail appears to run along it. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-27 21:13 | Harry Wood ♦101 | 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 rela... | |
| 3 | 2017-06-29 22:17 | SK53 ♦864 | From memory I think it's relatively easy to roam around Stockport Bus Station. I'm afraid I probably dont have any photos. Perhaps you should visit & then you can try the delights of the Crown just across the Mersey. | |
| 4 | 2017-06-30 08:06 | Harry Wood ♦101 | Yeah I think all of those footpaths should capture that pretty well. Here we're just talking about this section: http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_foot&route=53.40921%2C-2.16324%3B53.40958%2C-2.16199#map=19/53.40940/-2.16257 Now foot routable. But somebody might improve ... | |
| 5 | 2017-06-30 09:32 | SK53 ♦864 | 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 a... | |
| 49567413 by sixfoureight @ 2017-06-15 15:51 | 1 | 2017-06-20 23:09 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have set the name of way 124123799 to D30919 in this changeset. Did you intend it to be the ref?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-21 13:36 | sixfoureight ♦4 | Thanks,Just fixed thatAlex | |
| 49573328 by Ottermatter @ 2017-06-15 20:08 | 1 | 2017-06-20 20:26 | Mike Baggaley | HI, is this road really named Gate 1 Access Road, or is this a description (in which case it should not go in the name field)? It seems more likely that the gate should be named Gate 1.Regards,Mike |
| 49504401 by harg @ 2017-06-13 15:42 | 1 | 2017-06-20 20:07 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you have set access=no to way 500207364 due to a temporary closure, but have left bicycle=yes. This would seem to be incorrect as it denies pedestrian access but allows cycling. Can you please review? Is the closure expected to last for an extended period?Cheers,Mike |
| 49351339 by Kangaroony @ 2017-06-08 00:01 | 1 | 2017-06-09 14:37 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, please see hte UK tagging guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines - these state that highways should be mapped as follows:A roads with primary status (signed green) highway=trunk or trunk_linkA roads highway=primary or primary_linkB roads highw... |
| 49247510 by saintam1 @ 2017-06-04 17:14 | 1 | 2017-06-07 13:23 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 22414700, you have added bicycle=mtb. This is not a valid value for bicycle, as it is intended to show the legal status of whether you are allowed to cycle, not what type of bicycle you need. I suggest changing to bicycle=yes and adding mtb:scale= if you want to specify that it is only re... |
| 2 | 2017-06-07 13:38 | saintam1 ♦158 | 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�... | |
| 48773396 by Pawelaa @ 2017-05-17 21:13 | 1 | 2017-06-07 13:15 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is under construction way 494287254 really going to be one way - it appears to have in and out entries to the roundabout?Can you please review and either remove the oneway tag or set it to yes (a value of 1 is discouraged)?Thanks,Mike |
| 49270867 by urViator @ 2017-06-05 13:36 | 1 | 2017-06-07 12:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, you have changed way 27028316 (the end of Level Street) from secondary to tertiary, but it has a ref of B4179. Can you please either remove the ref if this part of Level Street is not part of the B4179 or revert the highway to secondary if it is part of the B4179?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-07 16:57 | urViator ♦3 | My oversight! Thanks, Mike. Now corrected. | |
| 49249838 by h3Bky2ff @ 2017-06-04 19:19 | 1 | 2017-06-07 12:47 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in way 43645053 (swing bridge) you have added access=no. This means pedestrians are not allowed, but the way also has bicycle=yes, so the bridge allows bicycles but nothing else. If the bridge allows pedestrians and cycles, then access=no should be removed, this will allow pedestrians (implicitl... |
| 49168224 by ESL1A2011 @ 2017-06-01 15:24 | 1 | 2017-06-04 22:09 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I see you've changed the access from private to commercial on this way. However, commercial is not a standard access value. Can you please change it to a valid value as found on page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-06 12:28 | ESL1A2011 ♦1 | Ok, thanks. I've changed it to customers. | |
| 49007712 by Dartymoor @ 2017-05-26 17:05 | 1 | 2017-06-04 22:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, can you take a look at the change you made to way 176868847? This now has name byway, which is unlikely to be the real name (did you intend designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic?) and it also has access=designated which is an invalid value (it is only allowed for other access types).Cheers,... |
| 2 | 2017-06-10 09:13 | Dartymoor ♦2 | 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 ... | |
| 48864442 by kevjs1982 @ 2017-05-21 15:20 | 1 | 2017-06-04 20:07 | Mike Baggaley | HI, on way 495029191, did you intend oneway=yes or oneway=no (oneway=service is not a standard value)?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-05 15:38 | kevjs1982 ♦19 | Whoops, that was supposed to be oneway=yes. Fixed. | |
| 49008806 by KeepItSimpleJim @ 2017-05-26 18:00 | 1 | 2017-06-04 19:03 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change set you appear to have named several highways as A329 (M). Firstly this looks like a ref, not a name and secondly the highway is set to tertiary. If this really is the A329 (M) I would expect highway to be primary or trunk with motorroad=yes also set.Can you please review your... |
| 49010424 by ClarkstonCorrect @ 2017-05-26 19:27 | 1 | 2017-06-04 18:17 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this and associated change sets you appear to have replaced the name "\tGlasgow Southern Orbital" (which I don't know whether it is correct) with A726 (which is definitely incorrect, as if is the ref) on a number of ways. Can you please review and correct as necessary?Thank... |
| 49153224 by chessrat @ 2017-06-01 05:01 | 1 | 2017-06-04 17:59 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice way 208485034 and adjoining ways have highway=tertiary and ref=A6055. One of these must be incorrect.Cheers,Mike |
| 49030589 by Sean4ts @ 2017-05-27 18:19 | 1 | 2017-06-04 17:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, if this is the B3354 (which is what its ref is set to), then it is a secondary road. Can you please correct either the highway type or the ref?Thanks,Mike |
| 49072433 by NorthBeric @ 2017-05-29 12:42 | 1 | 2017-06-04 17:05 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, does way 496679693 created in this change set have two names? If so, can you please put one of them in alt_name. If not, please delete the incorrect name.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-06-04 17:23 | NorthBeric ♦8 | Not sure how I managed that, that was an accident. Thanks for the spot. Eric | |
| 48456233 by zeusfaber @ 2017-05-06 16:23 | 1 | 2017-05-12 22:51 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, there are a dozen or so ways that you have put foot=dedicated on. This is not a standard value. Did you intend foot=designated? Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-12 23:05 | zeusfaber ♦1 | Mike,Good spot there. I was having a go at using a phone app to edit while still out in the field that day, so was relying on memory for tags I normally get from JOSM's standard menus. Will fix.A. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-12 23:13 | zeusfaber ♦1 | Done now. Thanks for pointing it out. A, | |
| 48525006 by albjorgui @ 2017-05-09 08:50 | 1 | 2017-05-12 22:33 | Mike Baggaley | HI way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/153213843 is tagged with a designation of public_bridleway, but you have added no to foot, bicycle and horse. Is this not a bridleway, or is there some reason for there to be no access to it?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-12 22:44 | albjorgui ♦3 | Hi. Yes I changed it because last weekend i went on a bike ride and tried to use the road to reach the path that in theory connects at the end of the road. However clear signs that it was a private road were found on the gate and along the service road and the owner of the property told me it was pr... | |
| 48455946 by mapguy99 @ 2017-05-06 16:09 | 1 | 2017-05-12 22:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, A68 cannot be the name of way 66151603 - it is the ref. Can you please take another look at it and change as appropriate?Thanks,Mike |
| 48487559 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-05-08 00:03 | 1 | 2017-05-08 07:55 | OffTheChart ♦13 | The roads inside the gates are known by the Gate Numbers, so it wasn't incorrect as it was. If this doesn't render on the map I will revert your changes. Will you ***PLEASE*** consider adding new detail rather than meddling with existing features? |
| 2 | 2017-05-08 09:14 | Mike Baggaley | Hi if the roads inside are known by the gate numbers then I stand corrected. It would be useful if you added a note to say that this is the case as this is extremely unusual. However, roads should only be named with the name tag if that name is one which would be used outside the local area (i.e. wo... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-08 12:55 | OffTheChart ♦13 | I've put a lot of effort into the Jersey part of OSM, as I live here and actually know the island and its quirks. My aim has been to produce a map that is useful in its standard presentation. It's frustrating that there have been several instances of things changing and affecting this stat... | |
| 48306976 by HenryWolny @ 2017-05-01 13:01 | 1 | 2017-05-07 23:06 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Henry, I notice you have set access=no to this street which precludes pedestrian access. Did you intend motor_vehicle=no, which would allow pedestrians (the way has bicycle=yes)?Regards,Mike |
| 48419701 by ALY2010 @ 2017-05-05 09:13 | 1 | 2017-05-06 16:16 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. If I can just make a small point, please only add proper nouns into the name field, avoiding values such as Fire Station and Post Office. If you know the full name (e.g. Normacot Road Post Office) then please add it, otherwise just leave the name field blank.Happy m... |
| 48422139 by jamesnash @ 2017-05-05 10:19 | 1 | 2017-05-06 15:52 | Mike Baggaley | Hi James, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Just a small point, please only set the name of an item to a proper noun that you would expect to find in an index of items. In this case, I would not expect to see "access to retail" in an index of highway names, so I have removed the name from the thre... |
| 48364995 by Tandava @ 2017-05-03 12:48 | 1 | 2017-05-04 17:21 | Mike Baggaley | HI, can you clarify what type of public right of way this is, and move its detail from the name to the designation tag e.g. designation=public_footpath (as "public right of way" is not a name)?Thanks,Mike |
| 48364389 by Tandava @ 2017-05-03 12:24 | 1 | 2017-05-04 17:18 | Mike Baggaley | Hi for footway 491117955, you have specified access=no, foot=yes. As all access except foot is by default no for a footway, the access=no does nothing other than cause confusion about whether you intended something different. Can you remove access=no, or did you intend something different?Cheers... |
| 48372943 by CitymapperHQ @ 2017-05-03 18:20 | 1 | 2017-05-04 17:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, did you intend this footway to have private access for pedestrians? If so, you either need to remove foot=yes or (preferably) remove access=private and set foot=private. As it stands, the access you have specified says private access for everything except foot, with public access for pedestrians... |
| 47478037 by bttyA @ 2017-04-05 14:16 | 1 | 2017-04-06 10:06 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, is foot allowed as well? Perhaps access=no could be removed?Cheers, Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-06 16:53 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | As it is designated as a public_bridleway foot is very defiintely allowed, as are horses and bikes. The bicycle=yes tag is therefore pointless and adds tag clutter. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-03 10:13 | jogger333 ♦2 | Dear Mike, Looking at the wiki, one should indeed make the usage clear with appropriate access tagging:"Also taginfo shows a significant number of uses of:designation=permissive_footpathdesignation=permissive_bridlewayThese tags should be used in combination with an appropriate highwa... | |
| 4 | 2017-05-03 10:45 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jogger333 , No I think the tagging was was incorrect (the original done by Russ McD). The update by bttyA was what brought it to light. The designation=public_bridleway would set the default access of foot, bicycle and horse=yes, however, access=no would override this and set them all to no. This... | |
| 5 | 2017-05-03 11:13 | jogger333 ♦2 | 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 yo... | |
| 6 | 2017-05-03 19:05 | Mike Baggaley | Unfortunately, I can't find a reference any more - the pages on access and UK mapping guidelines appear to have been changed towards the end of last year with the meaning of designated being changed. Bizarrely, the access=designated page now says the value is deprecated without saying what repl... | |
| 7 | 2017-05-04 07:42 | jogger333 ♦2 | 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 iss... | |
| 48326260 by SBaker15 @ 2017-05-02 07:33 | 1 | 2017-05-03 11:20 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in the footpaths here you have specified access=private with foot=yes. This means that all access except foot is private but access to pedestrians is available to the public. You either need just access=private or just foot=private if you want to say that there is no access to the public which i... |
| 2 | 2017-05-03 16:47 | SBaker15 ♦2 | Hi Mike,Thanks - that was indeed what I meant. This should be corrected now and I make sure I do not make the same mistake in the future! | |
| 48345406 by PeterP @ 2017-05-02 19:33 | 1 | 2017-05-03 11:12 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Peter, can you take a look at relation 7211752 - the values name=C00X and ref="ACW Closure 2017-05 to 2017-11" don't look to be correct. Should C00X be the ref?Cheers,Mike |
| 48337343 by alterain @ 2017-05-02 14:25 | 1 | 2017-05-02 19:07 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Hi, what is your reason and source for this change? Have you been there?The section you have tagged as a bridge is very definitely a causeway, and it is called simply Swarkestone Causeway.I will see what other local mappers view is, but mine is that this should be reverted.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2017-05-03 11:07 | Mike Baggaley | I agree, although not local, I have been over it. My understanding is that there are sections that are bridges and sections that are causeway and that it is in total known as Swarkestone Bridge and Swarkstone Causeway - see https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1088337. It certa... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-03 16:47 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | 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... | |
| 4 | 2017-05-06 14:39 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | No response so am reverting it based on my local knowledge gathered over many years | |
| 48026769 by Richard Carden @ 2017-04-22 09:01 | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:33 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Richard, welcome to OSM. I notice you have set bicycle=official on way 1688656, and I don't believe that is a valid value. Can you clarify what you meant?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-02 19:51 | Richard Carden ♦5 | It is a signed bicycle route between the canal and NCN56. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-02 20:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hmm, I was about to say that it should be bicycle=designated or bicycle=yes then. However, I see that there is in fact a page explaining its use at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial - but official is not mentioned in the main access page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/K... | |
| 48283762 by loveshack @ 2017-04-30 15:09 | 1 | 2017-05-01 12:29 | Mike Baggaley | Hi loveshack, can you explain how changing the road name from Ryeworth Road to Ryeworth Road/The Martins fixes the road name? This sounds like two names. Are they both road names? If they are, then one should go in alt_name. Or do the names belong to different parts of the road? Or is The Martins th... |
| 47920537 by Stephen the Geographer @ 2017-04-18 22:32 | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:18 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Stephen, I notice you have specified access=no and foot=yes on a number of footways in the area, giving rise to some confusion. As footways prohibit all other forms of access than foot (unless explicitly added) it is unclear what is meant by combining access=no with foot=yes on a footway.Rega... |
| 2 | 2017-04-30 16:22 | Stephen the Geographer ♦1 | Mike, I haven't contributed much yet to OSM so I'm happy to be corrected. What combination of tags should i use for a footpath?Stephen | |
| 3 | 2017-04-30 16:47 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Stephen, if the general public can use the footpath then you are best leaving access unset and using foot=yes. If is is signed as a public footpath, use foot=designated with designation=public_footpath. If it is signed as permissive, use foot=permissive. If the path can't be used by the publ... | |
| 47871081 by sobbomapper @ 2017-04-17 13:23 | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:31 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice you have set way 487434551 with foot=access which isn't a valid combination. Can you take a look at it?Thanks,Mike |
| 48176317 by Riggwelter @ 2017-04-26 21:47 | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:28 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice you have set way 64295546 with access=permissive;private which doesn't seem to make sense. I suggest that if this is a hotel access road, access=customers might be appropriate.Cheers,Mike |
| 48240922 by ecatmur @ 2017-04-28 21:38 | 1 | 2017-04-30 13:25 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I have changed access=bus to motor_vehicle=no + busy=yes on the bus pull in as access=bus is not a valid combination. Does that meet with your approval?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-30 19:25 | ecatmur ♦34 | Absolutely, thanks for fixing it. Ed | |
| 47999118 by Henry Stevens @ 2017-04-21 10:54 | 1 | 2017-04-30 11:37 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Henry, welcome to OpenStreetMap. I hope you are enjoying mapping. If I could make a small point, please don't make up descriptive names such as Park Path or Park entrance path - if a highway or point of interest doesn't have a proper name, the name field should be left empty.Best wi... |
| 48102867 by tms13 @ 2017-04-24 20:51 | 1 | 2017-04-30 11:33 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, following this and associated changes there are a number of ways that now have highway=motorway, but still have ref=A8 (e.g. way 439078382) should these be M8?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-03 20:50 | tms13 ♦77 | I've just reviewed it all, and I only had a couple to fix. I also updated the E16 route relation through this section to use the new motorway. | |
| 47840141 by nbcaldon @ 2017-04-16 14:54 | 1 | 2017-04-17 16:41 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, I notice you have created a new relation for the Nene Way, however, there is an existing Nene Way relation at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/85093 . Can you move the ways you have added to your relation to the existing one and delete the new relation?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 17:36 | nbcaldon ♦1 | That is my plan, but I cannot see a way to do it yet, which is why I added a note to the map asking for help. Once I complete a bit more of the route between the section I have done and the existing section, it will be reasonably easy to change the relations, but until then I am stuck. I am sure th... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-17 17:48 | Mike Baggaley | I have moved way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93223642 for you. You should now be able to see the main relation in that area and be able to add it to the other ways.Cheers,Mike | |
| 4 | 2017-04-17 18:18 | nbcaldon ♦1 | I wish I knew how you had done that! It's a good job I made the new relation a 'Hiking Route' and not a 'Foot Route' or I wouldn't know which was which when selecting the relation in ID editor. Thanks, David | |
| 5 | 2017-04-17 19:13 | Mike Baggaley | I don't use ID - couldn't get on with some of its way of working, so have gone back to Potlatch 2. In that, you click the Load Relation button in the Select Relation window, then type the id number of the relation (you do have to know that, but you can find it from waymarkedrtrails.org). I... | |
| 6 | 2017-04-17 19:59 | nbcaldon ♦1 | That is so simple. I think it's impossible in ID, and JOSM is just too confusing that I don't know whether it's possible or not. All done now until our next walk. Thanks. David | |
| 7 | 2017-04-17 23:05 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | In iD when editing a feature, if you expand "All relations" at the bottom you can click the big plus sign and then select a nearby relation. | |
| 8 | 2017-04-18 05:27 | nbcaldon ♦1 | That would have been OK, but this part of the route is too far from the next part. I don't think ID can handle this. Potlatch2, suggested by Mike Baggaley, is the answer as you can select any relation, not just nearby ones. | |
| 47835897 by Pink Duck @ 2017-04-16 11:21 | 1 | 2017-04-17 17:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, looking at Jolly Sailor Yard, motor_vehicle=unsuitable is not one of the standard access values - it might be better to use either no or discouraged, which are standard values, perhaps adding a note to say the road is unsuitable for motors. This will allow routing software to determine whether t... |
| 2 | 2017-04-18 08:09 | Pink Duck ♦151 | The sign says "unsuitable" explicitly. No would imply no access at all. Discouraged is perhaps an acceptable synonym, but again the sign says unsuitable, and the access is, well, unsuitable. So perhaps the 'standard' access values are outdated? | |
| 3 | 2017-04-18 15:06 | Pink Duck ♦151 | For reference, there are 62 uses of "unsuitable" versus 5 for "discouraged" via TagInfo. Also, discouraged is a different meaning to unsuitable. If one owns a particularly slim motor vehicle then the gap could be made comfortably, so the judgement is per case not a general discou... | |
| 47812553 by Neil Romig @ 2017-04-15 12:32 | 1 | 2017-04-17 16:19 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Neil, welcome to OpenStreetMap.Just a small point, we don't add the names of long distance routes to the paths themselves - the route names belong in the route relations. There is already a Templer Way route relation in OSM that you can see at http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/183721... |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 21:11 | Neil Romig ♦1 | Thanks for the pointers, I confess to being inexperienced in the ways of OSM and was trying to resolve some local map notes & issues. | |
| 47762476 by Martin Wynne @ 2017-04-14 02:11 | 1 | 2017-04-15 14:32 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Martin, please do not add names that are descriptive, e.g. Playground - we already know it is a playground from its tag.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-15 14:54 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | 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 l... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-15 15:04 | Mike Baggaley | You should not add incorrect data just so because something is not visible at a different zoom level. If the icons are too small for you to see, then please set the zoom level on your browser to display larger (I don't mean zoom in on the map). In addition to an icon, playgrounds are clearly di... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-15 15:19 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Hi Martin, also remember that OSM is a geographical database. The map you see on the OSM site is just one, of many renders that are available and anyone is free to create their own if what they require something different. | |
| 5 | 2017-04-15 15:26 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi Mike,But how do map users know what the colours mean? I clicked on the Map Key and a Playground isn't listed.When I zoom the browser some icons vanish. Also the map gets very fuzzy. I can't seem to attach a screenshot here, so here's a link:http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery/2/2_... | |
| 6 | 2017-04-15 15:29 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Icons are displayed at different zoom levels, I cannot tell what zoom level that image was, but the playground icon (in mapnik) displays starting at z17. | |
| 7 | 2017-04-15 15:40 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi, I was zooming the browser (Firefox) as suggested by Mike, not zooming levels in OSM. At some browser zoom settings the icons vanish, and reappear at both higher and lower settings (which doesn't make sense to me).cheers,Martin. | |
| 8 | 2017-04-15 15:44 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Use the + - zoom buttons, or simply the scroll wheel if you have a mouse.But do remember that OSM is a database and mapping should not be dictated by a single renderer. | |
| 9 | 2017-04-15 16:03 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Hi, Yes that's what I'm doing, using the mouse wheel. I have added a lot more detail to the Cemetery. Cheers, Martin. | |
| 10 | 2017-04-15 17:28 | Mike Baggaley | Regarding items and/or icons seeming to vanish at different zoom levels, you may not be aware that each zoom level is generated separately over a period of time, so after you add something, a few hours later you may see it at one zoom level, but it may not have yet made it into the others. I usually... | |
| 47787368 by Mike Baggaley @ 2017-04-14 17:04 | 1 | 2017-04-14 20:34 | ACS1986 ♦61 | Hi Mike,Adding foot=yes would allow pedestrians whilst maintaining the traffic restrictions.Removing the access=no tag to allow pedestrians has the unintended effect of allowing some types of traffic which aren't permitted by the road signs egs. horses and non-motorised vehicles.Regards,\... |
| 2 | 2017-04-14 23:48 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Adam,I must admit I haven't checked to see whether there is a no horses sign, but these are extremely rare in the UK, so I'd be very surprised if there is one there - they are normally only found at tunnels and other places that could be dangerous. Regarding vehicular traffic, I had ... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-15 12:27 | ACS1986 ♦61 | Hi,The signs are the blue circular signs meaning a road for buses, cycles and taxis only. Obviously pedestrians are also allowed unless explicitly prohibited.access=no, foot=yes, bus=yes, taxi=yes bicycle=yes seems a more accurate representation of these restrictions than motor_vehicle=no, bus=y... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-15 13:47 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, there are several reasons I normally choose setting motor_vehicle=no over access=no and overriding specific types of access. One is that setting access=no generally sets an incorrect value for horses - neither the blue signs nor the no entry signs prohibit horses, but I don't want to explic... | |
| 47725234 by Martin Wynne @ 2017-04-12 23:31 | 1 | 2017-04-14 13:36 | Mike Baggaley | HI Martin welcome to OpenStreetMap. Please note that Geopark Way is the name of a long distance route, not the name of individual path segments.OpenStreetMap already has Geopark Way as the name of the route along these paths, so please do not name the paths as well.Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-14 14:48 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | 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 ... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-14 15:01 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Martin, I should have explained that the OSM standard view doesn't show long distance paths, but if you go to waymarkedtrails.org it uses the OSM data to show hiking, cycling and other routes. As for names of points of interest, they should only be added if they are proper nouns, rather than... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-14 15:29 | Martin Wynne ♦15 | Thanks Mike. I have only recently started on OSM after finding my local area rather lacking in detail. I'm finding the process strangely addictive. :)Martin. | |
| 47686432 by osm_edit_12345 @ 2017-04-12 08:55 | 1 | 2017-04-13 14:40 | Mike Baggaley | Hi Jamie, welcome to OpenStreetMap, I hope you are enjoying mapping. I'd just like to mention a small point about mapping - please don't set the name field to anything that is not a proper noun or describes the item. For example, "Dawlish Community College Bus Bay" is a descripti... |
| 47641615 by John Grubb @ 2017-04-10 23:15 | 1 | 2017-04-12 10:26 | Mike Baggaley | Hi John, can you please avoid adding names like "Football", "Hockey" etc as these are not proper names. We already know that they are football and hockey pitches from the sport tag. The name tag should be used to add the actual name of the facility, not as a description. If the f... |
| 2 | 2017-04-12 12:00 | John Grubb ♦40 | 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 ... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-12 12:13 | Mike Baggaley | Hi John, you are correct that the standard OSM renderer shows them the same, however we should not be adding incorrect data just so that this renderer differentiates between them. Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer . There are lots of other renederers of OSM data,... | |
| 4 | 2017-04-12 13:04 | John Grubb ♦40 | I suspect it is probably a frustration shared by many more than just myself, Mike - that every feature available to be tagged doesn't show on the "home" of OSM (openstreetmap.org), as the primary/premier/whatever perception of the product, as it were. It seems odd that you would inclu... | |
| 47647896 by ALY2010 @ 2017-04-11 07:15 | 1 | 2017-04-12 10:34 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I hope you are enjoying mapping. Hope you don't mind me commenting, but Post Office is the brand of the post office, not its name. If you want to add the name of a post office, please name it as defined by the Post Office, e.g. Nantwich Post Office or Readsedale Av... |
| 2 | 2017-04-12 13:02 | ALY2010 ♦1 | Ok by me | |
| 47531883 by gurglypipe @ 2017-04-07 08:37 | 1 | 2017-04-10 13:45 | Mike Baggaley | Hi instead of access=residents, it might be better to map as access=private with note="residents only". This allows routing software to know whether or not it can route there.This would also agree with the access=private tag that is set on the car park.Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-10 14:09 | gurglypipe ♦872 | Done. | |
| 47539658 by Weasel-Wiesel @ 2017-04-07 13:26 | 1 | 2017-04-10 13:36 | Mike Baggaley | Hi, in this change Fountain Court (485346075) has area=permissive, which is not valid. Did you mean area=yes, access=permissive?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-04-10 18:48 | Weasel-Wiesel ♦16 | Yes, I did. Thanks for pointing that out. Changed to area=yes and access=permissive. |