| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57525644 by brianboru | 1 | 2018-03-27 21:48:41 UTC | mueschel | Hi,could you check the tagging of this node:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/267741447Jan |
| 2 | 2018-03-28 06:37:25 UTC | brianboru | Thanks Jan. How did I manage to enter that gibberish on the post box! Now corrected. Good to know someone's doing QABrian | |
| 54592247 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-12-15 09:45:55 UTC | GerdP | Hi!Please watch out for typo highway=residentiaal(double a)I found it as building=residentiaal and highway=residentiaalProbably caused by a bug in JOSM 13170 which sometimes forgets the presets and forces the user to type the complete tag value. |
| 2 | 2017-12-15 14:32:19 UTC | brianboru | Thanks for the warning. I was wondering why JOSM was behaving like that | |
| 53736833 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-12-13 09:56:09 UTC | Mike Baggaley | Hi, way 540167452 has access=block which I don't understand. Did you intend block to be in the surface tag? Or do you mean it is blocked (in which case access=no would make it clearer)?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-12-14 11:05:43 UTC | brianboru | MikeI'm not sure what I meant and I can't even remember if this footway is open or not so I just deleted the tagRegardsBrian | |
| 7985291 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-11-26 16:24:15 UTC | SomeoneElse | Mind if I change https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1262117773 etc. to "information=route_marker" and then add them to the Heart of England Way relation?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2017-11-27 08:53:56 UTC | brianboru | No problem. Go ahead | |
| 4357487 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-11-18 19:04:30 UTC | Hb- | This change affects the two pipelines w54630411 and w54630411 which have now the tag substance=fuels set. This tagging is unique in the database. I'm going to change it to substance=hydrocarbons. |
| 53170042 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-11-13 15:19:54 UTC | EdLoach | Hi Brian, Did you change the old Railway Drive back to unclassified because construction traffic can use it as well as bicycles? I notice you've added a note on one section that it is closed. http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/article/10481/Road-to-reopen-to-further-improve-new-access-to-railway-statio... |
| 2 | 2017-11-14 16:24:43 UTC | brianboru | Hi EdThere were no access restrictions on the road which is why I changed it back. There was a "Road Closed" sign which you could easily drive around for access so I thought it best to leave it as unclassified until the position clarifies itslelf ( there's also access to the British Tr... | |
| 52221600 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-09-22 05:41:44 UTC | Harald Hartmann | Hello brianboru. With this changeset you have introduced some new (and so far unkown and undocumented) keys at some toilets: `automatic_public_convenience` and `radar_key_needed`. For the second one could it be also a http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:centralkey ? #newkey |
| 2 | 2017-09-22 15:54:19 UTC | brianboru | Hi Thanks for your input, This is the data supplied by the local authority, which I retagged according to the wiki except for these two tags which the wiki didn't address- - hence the new tags. The key attribute I note is only a proposed key and radar is a better known term AFAIK than nks in the UK | |
| 46469368 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-08-30 09:11:41 UTC | GerdP | Hi!I've noticed that you used the unusual tag highway=footway_closed here. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/371904747Please seehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefixfor better tagging. |
| 50828573 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-08-11 22:01:20 UTC | Math1985 | Great work! |
| 50920302 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-08-08 10:28:58 UTC | mueschel | Hi,these 32 buildings have the tag "B30 2DH=B30" which looks like a mistake. Could you check that?Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2017-08-08 14:17:43 UTC | brianboru | Thanks Jan - what happened here I don't know! Corrected now | |
| 49456331 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-06-12 07:57:47 UTC | Math1985 | Thanks! |
| 46860931 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-04-02 14:17:21 UTC | mueschel | Hi,I noticed some issues with this (huge) import of ~20000 trees.- The nodes have several tags which are not defined in the wiki, such asage,constituency, form, plot_number, site_name, usrn, ward- I didn't find a discussion on this import. Was it announced on the mailing list?- the 'height... |
| 2 | 2017-04-27 14:01:51 UTC | brianboru | This is now documented for discussion at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Birmingham_City_Council_trees_data following talk-gb converstions and is paused until issues are resolved | |
| 44111054 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-04-27 09:04:14 UTC | Robert Whittaker | Are you sure the postcode of "B92 7AW" on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4533741026 is correct? According to Code-Point Open, that postcode is located over 3km away from this node. |
| 2 | 2017-04-27 12:25:41 UTC | brianboru | Thanks Robert - probably caused by cut n paste.Now corrected | |
| 46849184 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-03-14 18:37:04 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi Brian,You're still not using a separate import account, you're using a #gibberish changeset discussion comment and you're importing duplicates of existing data rather than conflating (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4734765468 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4149470376).Are you... |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 09:39:40 UTC | brianboru | I don't believe these are duplicate nodes but bus stops on opposite sides of the road, so conflation not appropriate. Duplicates are being reviewed manually to check which position is accurate I'm using my own account only to do a manual post-import review and cleanup of nodes. Not as neat as pur... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-19 23:27:43 UTC | SomeoneElse | Thanks Brian.Just one question - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/wmca doesn't seem to be a valid account?Best Regards,Andy | |
| 4 | 2017-04-20 12:25:00 UTC | brianboru | Sorry Andy - so used to abbreviating it. The username is West Midlands Combined Authority. This also came through on email this timme!Brian | |
| 5 | 2017-04-20 13:26:19 UTC | SomeoneElse | Thanks Brian - and yay for email appearing! | |
| 46897632 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-03-17 12:11:48 UTC | mueschel | Hi,could you check this node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4303618075The tag ref`... = grid_bin doesn't look right.Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 09:42:56 UTC | brianboru | Finger trouble! Thanks - corrected | |
| 46833897 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-03-14 18:30:40 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi Brian,Could you please address the questions raised on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46819034 before continuing to import this data?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 09:16:10 UTC | brianboru | Being addressed as requested. Import paused | |
| 46081403 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-02-24 14:04:06 UTC | SomeoneElse | Is the WMCA really "admin level 6"? I thought that it just an attempt to obtain some "City Region" government money, and didn't have any of the administrative powers (beyond running the buses) that e.g. Birmingham City Council did? |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 09:15:14 UTC | brianboru | I did muse over this one. There is an elected mayor and powers over economic regeneration. From WMCA's website:Combined authorities are legal bodies with powers of decision making granted by parliament. They are a new way for local authorities to work together on key strategic functions that cro... | |
| 31943416 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-01-07 12:16:58 UTC | SomeoneElse | Oops - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2694560369 is "building=shop=*signs"?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 09:09:52 UTC | brianboru | finger trouble again. Node deleted, name added to building, with shop=yes | |
| 44213687 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-12-08 11:32:27 UTC | mueschel | Hi,could you check some of your bus stops? There are many foreign tags like on this node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4149470376Jan |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 09:06:19 UTC | brianboru | Node deleted and replaced with standard naptan tags | |
| 7733473 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-09-04 22:35:32 UTC | SomeoneElse | ... and another one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106746591 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106746580 are "building=uy". Any ideas? |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 09:01:54 UTC | brianboru | finger trouble corrected to yes | |
| 8737362 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-09-04 22:14:22 UTC | SomeoneElse | Another one - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121882501 is "building=iy" - any ideas about that? |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 09:00:10 UTC | brianboru | finger trouble again -should have been yes, but I've updtaed it to retail | |
| 12594712 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-09-04 22:08:14 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi Brian,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174268930 is "building=r#" - any idea what was meant there?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 08:57:46 UTC | brianboru | finger trouble - now corrected to residential | |
| 39535291 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-05-25 14:09:59 UTC | highflyer74 | Hello there!Can you check https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/956111131? I think there was some fingertrouble involved here...All the best from across the Channel! |
| 2 | 2017-04-17 08:55:10 UTC | brianboru | thanks! removed | |
| 46819034 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-03-13 18:16:22 UTC | chillly | This is an import, right? Where's the unique userid? Where's the wiki import page? Where's the Imports mailing list discussion? |
| 2 | 2017-03-13 22:54:28 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi Brian,It looks like things may have got a bit ahead of themselves here. The only list discussion that I can see for this is at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html , and that's not really a discussion as much as you saying "I'd like to imp... | |
| 3 | 2017-03-19 15:15:59 UTC | pigsonthewing | Other issues are already being discussed elsewhere, but "Betula sp" (strictly, with italicised "Betula" and period in "sp.") is the correct taxonomic designation for a specimen of the genus Betula, whose exact species is not known.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci... | |
| 4 | 2017-03-19 17:17:34 UTC | SK53 | @pigsonthewing: there is also a widely used genus tag, which is particularly appropriate for trees not identified to species (and generally useful because of the vagaries of the taxonomy of various street trees). | |
| 45223802 by brianboru | 1 | 2017-01-16 19:52:16 UTC | Math1985 | Great to see you active again (and resolving my notes :)) Brian! |
| 43742197 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-11-18 21:54:25 UTC | Math1985 | Thanks a lot! |
| 40812693 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-07-24 21:21:46 UTC | Aleks-Berlin | I removed your 4=2 (key=value). I think it is a typo. |
| 26345906 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-07-03 17:01:01 UTC | SomeoneElse | Looks like a barrier tag and a name tag got confused on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188089050 . Should there be a space in the name? |
| 2 | 2016-07-04 07:42:52 UTC | brianboru | Thanks Andy - corrected | |
| 18890998 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-07-03 16:57:34 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi Brian,http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/246113785 seems a bit odd - looks like a barrier tag and a name tag got confused?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2016-07-04 07:42:25 UTC | brianboru | Thanks Andy - corrected | |
| 25031335 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-07-03 16:30:56 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi Brian,Is "Bethel Church" on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/300285453 a name or a denomination (or something else)?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2016-07-04 07:41:57 UTC | brianboru | Thanks Andy - corrected | |
| 31521042 by brianboru | 1 | 2016-01-26 09:31:13 UTC | GerdP | Hi Brian,I noticed that you changed some roads from highway=redeveloped to highway=demolished, which is BTW also not well documented. What about this remaining last one?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/349398867 |
| 31749108 by brianboru | 1 | 2015-12-20 21:47:38 UTC | SomeoneElse | Hi - while importing stuff into a rendering database, I noticed that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351677973 has layer=17 on it. That's obviously not invalid, but may not have been what was intended :) |
| 2 | 2015-12-28 12:55:25 UTC | brianboru | Correctd to layer 1 | |
| 16411129 by brianboru | 1 | 2015-12-24 16:53:28 UTC | SomeoneElse | If it's been shut for 2 years and counting perhaps "disused:amenity=pub" might be better than "amenity=pub" for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/224272727/history ? |
| 35015175 by brianboru | 1 | 2015-11-21 17:00:00 UTC | pmailkeey | Brian - did you delete the path that runs alongside the railway between Ulverley Green Road and Warwick Rd ? |
| 2 | 2015-11-22 11:01:53 UTC | brianboru | Yes: it doesn't exist. | |
| 3 | 2015-11-22 11:40:28 UTC | brianboru | If you want to be respected as a member of this community, please be courteous enough to wait for a reply to a changeset comment before reverting. I've deleted this path again, having surveyed the area this morning to confirm there is no path here | |
| 4 | 2015-11-22 12:53:23 UTC | pmailkeey | Just like you don't - you reverted it without waiting for a reply from me. If you're going to be obnoxious about it, it's not my fault you're too blind to see the path. I've put it back in because it is there. I'll now give you directions:From the railway bridge over Warwick Rd, on the east side o... | |
| 5 | 2015-11-22 13:13:03 UTC | brianboru | There is no path here | |
| 6 | 2015-11-22 13:22:57 UTC | pmailkeey | I know there is as I've walked along it ! | |
| 7 | 2015-11-22 14:30:05 UTC | brianboru | You might well have done. But when? Currently the northern end has a 7 ft high padlocked security gate with vicious spikes on it which leads into a builders storage area filled with security fencing panels with a fence behind it. The southern end has a padlocked gate followed by a highway maintenanc... | |
| 8 | 2015-11-22 14:35:04 UTC | pmailkeey | Thanks for the update. I've reported the issue to the council (again!) - only this time with the blockages. | |
| 9 | 2015-11-22 14:42:49 UTC | pmailkeey | The path used to continue over UG road and past the station, over Richmond Rd and all the way to Lincoln Rd. The bit parallel to Stn drive was obviously not needed (but still had a no cycling sign!) and the continuation north of Richmond road still has a short section in use (past the end of 109) an... | |
| 10 | 2015-11-23 09:06:43 UTC | SomeoneElse | @pmailkeey - the discussion above makes it clear that currently no path exists. You re-added it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35521480 , I've deleted it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35525671 . Please don't add it back until you've actually surveyed it yourself and found ... | |
| 12144257 by brianboru | 1 | 2015-11-14 20:58:03 UTC | GerdP | please review:I assume surface=b stands for beton?way 170511971,way 170511974,way 170511973,way 170511978,way 170511977,way 23136293 |
| 2 | 2015-11-16 19:53:05 UTC | brianboru | I have no idea - I must have a had brainfart when editing this. Just delete the tag | |
| 3 | 2015-11-16 20:05:28 UTC | GerdP | :-)done | |
| 34548911 by brianboru | 1 | 2015-11-01 19:40:20 UTC | GerdP | please explain:what does the word CUS inhighway="bus_stop CUS"mean ?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2612760560 |
| 2 | 2015-11-06 18:54:32 UTC | brianboru | This is a notation by NapTAN- the national database for bus stops which denotes it is a CUStomary stop i.e there is no physical bus stop present but the local drivers and passengers know that the bus stops there on request. We don't tag these as bus stops | |
| 3 | 2015-11-08 17:20:57 UTC | GerdP | Thanks for the information. I understand now that this is a very special case. I changed the tag to highway=bus_stop a few days ago, now I am unsure what to do.I guess the best would be to remove the highway=bus_stop tag and only keep the node? | |
| 4 | 2015-11-08 17:31:15 UTC | SomeoneElse | My recollection was that we went with "physically_present=no" as per http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502390265 for verified customary stops. Certainly many came in from NaPTAN without highway=bus_stop on them (though my recollection was that the west mids NaPTAN import was slightly earl... | |
| 5 | 2015-11-08 19:02:20 UTC | GerdP | okay, this tag is used quite often together with bus_stop, so I think I'll just add it to those two bus_stops. | |
| 6 | 2015-11-09 07:39:43 UTC | brianboru | Please don't unless you've surveyed the site and found a physical bus stop pole. The West Midands imported the Naptan data WITHOUT the bus stop tag so that we could survey the naptan data. We found naptan data is often wildly inaccurate. Locally we don't tag CUS with a bus stop tag. You might find ... | |
| 7 | 2015-11-09 07:49:46 UTC | GerdP | okay, now I am really lost.My understanding is that physically_present=nosays I will not find a physical bus stop pole. I understood your first comment so that the bus stops thereif one gives a sign to the driver.Did I get that wrong? | |
| 8 | 2015-11-09 08:43:35 UTC | brianboru | You are correct. But please respect West Midlands community practice which is we don't tag CUS stops with highway=bus stop unless we've surveyed and found the CUS stop has been upgraded with a pole which can be surveyed. Physically present=no was a very early attempt at quality assurancec on the nap... | |
| 9 | 2015-11-09 09:17:31 UTC | SomeoneElse | Just to clarify, the example I gave earlier http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502390265 was a _verified_ customary stop (I caught a bus from there). Different areas' NaPTAN data have been of very different quality - some areas have found stop positions to be reasonably accurate (at the time of impo... | |
| 10 | 2015-11-09 09:30:56 UTC | GerdP | okay, so I'll revert all my changes and leave highway="bus_stop CUS" untouched in the future until one finds a better way to tag thatelement ? | |
| 11 | 2015-11-09 14:32:51 UTC | GerdP | done | |
| 21328663 by brianboru | 1 | 2015-10-30 09:19:43 UTC | GerdP | please explain:highway=redeveloped is only used here.It seems the more often used highway=dismantled matches as well ? |
| 29881063 by brianboru | 1 | 2015-10-27 08:40:26 UTC | GerdP | please review:I've changed highway=pre-existing prior to redevelopment to highway=dismantledMaybe map the area that is rebuiltas landuse=construction ? |
| 2 | 2015-10-27 12:24:01 UTC | brianboru | OK by me. I've also changed the spur at the end of the road in question | |
| 3 | 2015-10-27 12:54:55 UTC | GerdP | okay, thanks for the feedback | |