Copyright © Pascal Neis (neis-one.org) - Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors (Data is updated every 30 min) - See latest OSM discussions - Legend: Discussion without an answer - RSS feed - Show only discussions without an answer
Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
46469368 by
brianboru		12017-08-30 09:11:41 UTCGerdP Hi!
I've noticed that you used the unusual tag highway=footway_closed here.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/371904747
Please see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
for better tagging.
50828573 by
brianboru		12017-08-11 22:01:20 UTCMath1985 Great work!
50920302 by
brianboru		12017-08-08 10:28:58 UTCmueschel Hi,
these 32 buildings have the tag "B30 2DH=B30" which looks like a mistake. Could you check that?

Cheers, Jan
22017-08-08 14:17:43 UTCbrianboru Thanks Jan - what happened here I don't know! Corrected now
49456331 by
brianboru		12017-06-12 07:57:47 UTCMath1985 Thanks!
46860931 by
brianboru		12017-04-02 14:17:21 UTCmueschel 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 as
age,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...
22017-04-27 14:01:51 UTCbrianboru 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		12017-04-27 09:04:14 UTCRobert 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.
22017-04-27 12:25:41 UTCbrianboru Thanks Robert - probably caused by cut n paste.Now corrected
46849184 by
brianboru		12017-03-14 18:37:04 UTCSomeoneElse 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...
22017-04-17 09:39:40 UTCbrianboru 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...
32017-04-19 23:27:43 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks Brian.
Just one question - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/wmca doesn't seem to be a valid account?
Best Regards,
Andy
42017-04-20 12:25:00 UTCbrianboru Sorry Andy - so used to abbreviating it. The username is West Midlands Combined Authority.
This also came through on email this timme!
Brian
52017-04-20 13:26:19 UTCSomeoneElse Thanks Brian - and yay for email appearing!
46897632 by
brianboru		12017-03-17 12:11:48 UTCmueschel Hi,
could you check this node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4303618075

The tag ref`... = grid_bin doesn't look right.

Cheers, Jan
22017-04-17 09:42:56 UTCbrianboru Finger trouble! Thanks - corrected
46833897 by
brianboru		12017-03-14 18:30:40 UTCSomeoneElse 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
22017-04-17 09:16:10 UTCbrianboru Being addressed as requested. Import paused
46081403 by
brianboru		12017-02-24 14:04:06 UTCSomeoneElse 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?
22017-04-17 09:15:14 UTCbrianboru 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		12017-01-07 12:16:58 UTCSomeoneElse Oops - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2694560369 is "building=shop=*signs"?
Cheers,
Andy
22017-04-17 09:09:52 UTCbrianboru finger trouble again. Node deleted, name added to building, with shop=yes
44213687 by
brianboru		12016-12-08 11:32:27 UTCmueschel Hi,
could you check some of your bus stops? There are many foreign tags like on this node: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4149470376
Jan
22017-04-17 09:06:19 UTCbrianboru Node deleted and replaced with standard naptan tags
7733473 by
brianboru		12016-09-04 22:35:32 UTCSomeoneElse ... and another one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106746591 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106746580 are "building=uy". Any ideas?
22017-04-17 09:01:54 UTCbrianboru finger trouble corrected to yes
8737362 by
brianboru		12016-09-04 22:14:22 UTCSomeoneElse Another one - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121882501 is "building=iy" - any ideas about that?
22017-04-17 09:00:10 UTCbrianboru finger trouble again -should have been yes, but I've updtaed it to retail
12594712 by
brianboru		12016-09-04 22:08:14 UTCSomeoneElse Hi Brian,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174268930 is "building=r#" - any idea what was meant there?
Cheers,
Andy
22017-04-17 08:57:46 UTCbrianboru finger trouble - now corrected to residential
39535291 by
brianboru		12016-05-25 14:09:59 UTChighflyer74 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!
22017-04-17 08:55:10 UTCbrianboru thanks! removed
46819034 by
brianboru		12017-03-13 18:16:22 UTCchillly This is an import, right? Where's the unique userid? Where's the wiki import page? Where's the Imports mailing list discussion?
22017-03-13 22:54:28 UTCSomeoneElse 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...
32017-03-19 15:15:59 UTCpigsonthewing 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...
42017-03-19 17:17:34 UTCSK53 @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		12017-01-16 19:52:16 UTCMath1985 Great to see you active again (and resolving my notes :)) Brian!
43742197 by
brianboru		12016-11-18 21:54:25 UTCMath1985 Thanks a lot!
40812693 by
brianboru		12016-07-24 21:21:46 UTCAleks-Berlin I removed your 4=2 (key=value). I think it is a typo.
26345906 by
brianboru		12016-07-03 17:01:01 UTCSomeoneElse 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?
22016-07-04 07:42:52 UTCbrianboru Thanks Andy - corrected
18890998 by
brianboru		12016-07-03 16:57:34 UTCSomeoneElse 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
22016-07-04 07:42:25 UTCbrianboru Thanks Andy - corrected
25031335 by
brianboru		12016-07-03 16:30:56 UTCSomeoneElse Hi Brian,
Is "Bethel Church" on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/300285453 a name or a denomination (or something else)?
Cheers,
Andy
22016-07-04 07:41:57 UTCbrianboru Thanks Andy - corrected
31521042 by
brianboru		12016-01-26 09:31:13 UTCGerdP 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		12015-12-20 21:47:38 UTCSomeoneElse 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 :)
22015-12-28 12:55:25 UTCbrianboru Correctd to layer 1
16411129 by
brianboru		12015-12-24 16:53:28 UTCSomeoneElse 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		12015-11-21 17:00:00 UTCpmailkeey Brian - did you delete the path that runs alongside the railway between Ulverley Green Road and Warwick Rd ?
22015-11-22 11:01:53 UTCbrianboru Yes: it doesn't exist.
32015-11-22 11:40:28 UTCbrianboru 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
42015-11-22 12:53:23 UTCpmailkeey 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...
52015-11-22 13:13:03 UTCbrianboru There is no path here
62015-11-22 13:22:57 UTCpmailkeey I know there is as I've walked along it !
72015-11-22 14:30:05 UTCbrianboru 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...
82015-11-22 14:35:04 UTCpmailkeey Thanks for the update. I've reported the issue to the council (again!) - only this time with the blockages.
92015-11-22 14:42:49 UTCpmailkeey 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...
102015-11-23 09:06:43 UTCSomeoneElse @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		12015-11-14 20:58:03 UTCGerdP please review:
I assume surface=b stands for beton?
way 170511971,way 170511974,way 170511973,way 170511978,way 170511977,way 23136293
22015-11-16 19:53:05 UTCbrianboru I have no idea - I must have a had brainfart when editing this. Just delete the tag
32015-11-16 20:05:28 UTCGerdP :-)
done
34548911 by
brianboru		12015-11-01 19:40:20 UTCGerdP please explain:
what does the word CUS in
highway="bus_stop CUS"
mean ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2612760560
22015-11-06 18:54:32 UTCbrianboru 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
32015-11-08 17:20:57 UTCGerdP 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?
42015-11-08 17:31:15 UTCSomeoneElse 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...
52015-11-08 19:02:20 UTCGerdP okay, this tag is used quite often together with bus_stop, so I think I'll just add it to those two bus_stops.
62015-11-09 07:39:43 UTCbrianboru 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 ...
72015-11-09 07:49:46 UTCGerdP okay, now I am really lost.
My understanding is that
physically_present=no
says I will not find a physical bus
stop pole. I understood your first
comment so that the bus stops there
if one gives a sign to the driver.
Did I get that wrong?
82015-11-09 08:43:35 UTCbrianboru 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...
92015-11-09 09:17:31 UTCSomeoneElse 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...
102015-11-09 09:30:56 UTCGerdP 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 that
element ?
112015-11-09 14:32:51 UTCGerdP done
21328663 by
brianboru		12015-10-30 09:19:43 UTCGerdP please explain:
highway=redeveloped is only used here.
It seems the more often used highway=dismantled matches
as well ?
29881063 by
brianboru		12015-10-27 08:40:26 UTCGerdP please review:

I've changed highway=pre-existing prior to redevelopment to highway=dismantled
Maybe map the area that is rebuilt
as landuse=construction ?
22015-10-27 12:24:01 UTCbrianboru OK by me. I've also changed the spur at the end of the road in question
32015-10-27 12:54:55 UTCGerdP okay, thanks for the feedback
31 changeset(s) created by brianboru have been discussed with a total of 77 comment(s)