Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-09-03 20:20:44 UTCJohn-O Thanks for your edit. Any idea what has happened to the service-road, which now appears beneath the motorway slip road?
22018-01-09 16:20:12 UTCtms13 Now updated from latest aerial photos.
12017-12-17 10:21:21 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I know the tag predates this change, but are you able to confirm whether the reference on way 186530431 is correct? It is currently set to A9000, but this seems unlikely for a bus-only tertiary road.

22017-12-19 13:17:12 UTCtms13 I didn't tag that ref, and I was as surprised as you. But when traffic was recently diverted over the old bridge, that's what was signed, so I can now corroborate it. I think it's still operated (by FETA) on behalf of Transport Scotland (making it 'trunk' by the strict rules, but signed in white-b...
32017-12-20 13:35:20 UTCtms13 I've just been down to Ferrytoll - FRB is definitely signed as A9000 on the approaches to the roundabout.
12017-08-31 20:53:10 UTCGinaroZ Stray node: don't know if it's meant to be something?
22017-09-03 20:17:22 UTCtms13 Fixed - thanks for picking this up!
12017-08-30 14:13:07 UTCCebderby What was the source for these junction names? I note particularly you have set M4 J11 as 'Calcot Interchange', when it is J12 that serves Theale and Calcot (another editor has since set 'Theale Interchange' on J12).
22017-08-30 21:44:15 UTCtms13 It was some time ago - I remember looking them up in something at least vaguely official. But it could have been CBRD; I should have noted the source when I submitted the change!
32017-08-31 09:49:41 UTCCebderby Thanks for the reply, seems that J12 is interchangeably referred to as Theale or Calcot, and J11 doesn't really have a name, so I'll drop the current names from the J11 exits.
12017-08-06 20:50:22 UTCSomeoneElse Hi - just wondered about the layer tag on . It's set to layer=1, but the bit to the north is layer=-1. Both sections are location=underground.
22017-08-08 16:55:47 UTCtms13 Thanks. I've fixed this, and in progress of more accurately tracing both aqueducts using OS 6"/mile mapping from early 1900s.
12017-07-29 20:43:02 UTCJamesKingdom Hi,
Please can you confirm the location of , is this a disused railway?
It just seems that the tagging is either wrong or it is drawn incorrectly, as it goes through numerous buildings and tennis courts.
22017-07-31 20:38:57 UTCtms13 The western end looks slightly off compared to the 1960s map - it splits into sidings, mostly under the present-day Kirkland Drive and on to the old Carrongrove Paper Mill. That part is probably more accurate to tag railway=dismantled, I think. Will update to correct it.
32017-07-31 20:44:43 UTCJamesKingdom I updated some in an edit of mine, keeping the original tagging and applying highway=footway where it makes sense, thank you.
12017-05-08 22:23:40 UTCgurglypipe Shouldn’t the narrow roads be tagged with width=3m (or so) rather than lanes=1?
22017-05-15 12:57:13 UTCtms13 I didn't measure any of the roads, but a good number of them are less than the 2.75m you'd expect for a new-build. If you have the information, then feel free to add 'width' tags. Some of the roads tagged in this change are wider, like narrow two-way roads as mentioned in your link; they would als...
32017-05-24 14:30:34 UTCGinaroZ I'd seen lanes=1 used for narrow roads before, so it was a surprise when I read the wiki page saying the lanes tag was for marked lanes.

Unless you get your tape measure out and measure the width, lanes=1 or 1.5 judged by car widths are surely a better estimate?
42017-05-24 16:27:18 UTCgurglypipe Probably best to move discussion about the tagging scheme to the wiki. width can be used irrespective of vehicle type, whereas lanes=1 or lanes=1.5 is ambiguous wrt whether two trucks could pass, for example; or whether cars can pass by slowing down and pulling in to the side a little, or whether on...
12017-04-30 11:33:12 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, following this and associated changes there are a number of ways that now have highway=motorway, but still have ref=A8 (e.g. way 439078382) should these be M8?

22017-05-03 20:50:54 UTCtms13 I've just reviewed it all, and I only had a couple to fix. I also updated the E16 route relation through this section to use the new motorway.
12017-03-20 23:45:03 UTCGinaroZ Did you remove the highway tag from by mistake?
22017-03-21 07:31:18 UTCtms13 Yes - good catch. Now fixed.
12016-11-25 14:38:39 UTCDaveF Why have you moved lime kiln roundabout? The kiln's remnants are in the centre. You've made part of the A38 oneway.
PDF (Page 10):
22016-11-25 15:08:42 UTCtms13 I moved the roundabout because that's where my GPS trace of the southbound side located it. Yes, that oneway tag should have been proposed:oneway - I'll fix that if no-one else got to it first.
32016-11-25 15:13:39 UTCtms13 That Google link was just a redirection to, where the outline of the lime kilns looks very different to that on OSM - perhaps it needs a re-survey? If you're in the area, you may be able to get access to the new roundabout t...
42016-11-25 23:34:03 UTCDaveF Reply to first comment:
You're GPS route isn't visible within OSM. Could you please upload with appropriate permissions so all OSM contributors can corroborate. You covered a lot of distance for that chainset. What speed were you travelling? Did you stop & take accurate waypoints & photogra...
12016-10-24 10:21:55 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, can you check the change you made on way 93670400 from oneway=no to oneway=no;yes which is not valid. Did you intend this to be oneway=yes? There also appears to be an adjoining way to the west that is one way, but I suspect it should be two way.

22016-10-24 12:47:14 UTCtms13 Fixed (both - I saw no evidence of one-way working)
12016-09-22 22:18:01 UTCGinaroZ Is the park and ride still connected to the roundabout? Saw on this video that it's not:
22016-09-23 14:14:57 UTCtms13 No, it's not - I disconnected that a while ago when I surveyed the new access from B981 under the railway viaduct.
32016-09-23 18:42:11 UTCGinaroZ Whoosp sorry, I didn't zoom in far enough to see the gap! #numpty
12016-09-23 05:01:17 UTCCloCkWeRX Theres no GPS traces or imagery matching Cawburn Road, do you have any photos or similar?
22016-09-23 14:18:07 UTCtms13 Yes, I have the photos, but I don't generally publish my survey photos or GPS tracks. Is there something in particular that you want a picture of?
12016-09-15 13:11:39 UTCMike Baggaley Hi, I notice that way 440858988 has been changed to abandoned, I assume due to recent road changes in the area. However, cycle route 71 appears to run along it. Can you confirm whether route 71 needs to be re-routed or whether the old road is still in use as a cycleway?

Mike B.
22016-09-15 18:43:28 UTCtms13 Thanks for spotting this. I think that the cycleway is routed over the new track to Low Street - I've made a best-guess edit in changeset 42182872; it could do with an on-the-ground check to be completely sure. None of my photos have any NCN signage in them at all.
12016-05-20 13:34:13 UTCGinaroZ Not sure if you are aware, but the maxheight tag uses the format x'y" for feet/inches
22016-08-26 10:25:18 UTCtms13 Thanks for the update; I've changed my tag templates over to the new format.
12016-05-10 20:05:22 UTCGinaroZ Thanks for adding the maxheight - though it should be in the form of 10'9" rather than ft and in - I've sorted it :)
12016-05-09 21:38:14 UTCGinaroZ Hi, is there really a break in the B9080 at this location ?
22016-05-10 14:29:30 UTCtms13 No, there's not supposed to be a gap - looks like the section under the bridge (with reduced lane count and possibly height limit) got deleted. I'll fix it as soon as I get back to my editing workstation (tonight, I hope).
12016-04-06 16:22:35 UTCMike Baggaley The junction of Clyde Arc and Govan Road now has way 133800148 with oneway=yes;no and running into a one way segment of Govan Road. This doesn't seem quite right.

12015-11-11 15:51:39 UTCGerdP please explain:
what is meant with
oneway=advised ?
It is only used for two ways and
22015-11-11 19:09:34 UTCtms13 Hi Gerd, Crossgreen drive is signposted as a recommended one-way (I can't remember the exact wording on the sign, but could look it it up if necessary; it's certainly something I've never seen elsewhere). I take that to mean that there's no legal order preventing other-way traffic, but that if ever...
32015-11-11 19:49:01 UTCGerdP I see, interesting idea.
If that sign is an official one I have also no better idea, else I would not map
it with the oneway tag.
In Germany, I often see handmade signs with warnings like "attention, playing children". While I understand this as a useful hint to drive careful, I wouldn'...
42015-11-11 20:07:28 UTCtms13 This one is not handmade - it looks like a proper highways sign - aluminium, reflective coat, etc. It really is an official advisory one-way. Like I say, I've never seen anything similar elsewhere.
12015-10-18 17:57:31 UTCGerdP please review:
way 371796574 has invalid tag
Bing doesn't seem to show current status.
22015-10-19 00:01:53 UTCtms13 Thanks - fixed in changeset 34722439.
32015-10-19 00:02:59 UTCtms13 Aerial photos can take a year or more to catch up on new developments.
42015-10-19 04:41:30 UTCGerdP thanks, and yes, I just wanted to explain why
I did not change the tag on my own.
12015-06-08 12:02:53 UTCSomeoneElse Looks like something went wrong with here - it now has mangled layer tags of "2;1;2".
22015-06-10 18:13:57 UTCtms13 Thanks - fix committed.
12015-03-17 08:43:28 UTCtms13 And a couple of missed speed limit fixes in south Livingston and Dumfriesshire.
12015-01-27 12:36:50 UTCchillly The document you quote has no licence info in it, so that means it is copyright. Do you have a licence or written agreement to use this data?
12014-11-13 12:29:56 UTCDaveF Bromley Heath Rd, Bristol: Are you sure that's the A4174? I think it got renumbered:

What OS OpenData did you use for these amendments & is it up to...
22014-11-13 18:59:18 UTCtms13 I was using StreetView on - it seems not to have been updated since November.

I've changed the ref to A4017 as you suggest, and set old_ref to avoid any future confusion. (changeset 26762646)
24 changeset(s) created by tms13 have been discussed with a total of 56 comment(s)