Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
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)
18 changeset(s) created by tms13 have been discussed with a total of 41 comment(s)