Pink Duck have been discussed with 58 replies of this contributorPink Duck have been discussed with 58 replies of this contributor| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 144404863 by Pink Duck @ 2023-11-24 11:42 | 1 | 2025-06-14 13:07 | stillhart ♦155 | lovely details |
| 2 | 2025-06-14 13:12 | Pink Duck | Have supercharged my S there for free a couple of times. The view from within the showroom outwards past the glass frontage is worth a look too. | |
| 165672203 by Pink Duck @ 2025-05-01 11:56 | 1 | 2025-05-01 21:02 | Nodariel ♦6 | Oh gosh, that description got me 🤣 |
| 159104288 by Pink Duck @ 2024-11-13 19:18 | 1 | 2024-11-13 21:06 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | Topic created https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/uk-speed-limit-on-private-roads/121579/7 |
| 155364145 by Pink Duck @ 2024-08-17 10:37 | 1 | 2024-10-11 09:24 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | Could you check the designation tags you gave to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308417774 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308417778 in this changeset? I suspect they should both be just designation=public_footpath, but currently one has designation=public_footway and the other has designa... |
| 2 | 2024-10-11 09:28 | Pink Duck | It is actually one of the relatively few quiet lanes that happens to be cross-field. I only added the designation in from the point fairly inset where the quite lanes marker appeared on the SE end. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-11 09:30 | Pink Duck | +quiet - it continues along Robinson’s Loke bridleway too. | |
| 4 | 2024-10-11 09:36 | Pink Duck | Can spot the marker in Aug 2016 StreetView, but like a lot of them they have become rather overgrown or accident impacted since. | |
| 5 | 2024-10-11 09:47 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | That's odd with the "Quiet Lane" - do you think the sign was a mistake by the council?But regardless of that, surely it should be public_footpath, not public_footway in the designations there. | |
| 6 | 2024-10-11 09:51 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | I've just found https://knaptonvillage.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Norfolk-County-Council-Quiet-Lanes.pdf . Page 11 suggests the off-road sections should be "links" rather than "Quiet Lanes"... | |
| 7 | 2024-10-11 09:58 | Pink Duck | Ah, missed the typo! Yes, should be public_footpath in designation instead of public_footway. The Quiet Lanes map for North Norfolk used dashed lines for the links, but the marker posts on ground call them Quiet Lanes still. | |
| 154923272 by Pink Duck @ 2024-08-07 08:22 | 1 | 2024-08-18 12:12 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | Hi, the correct tag for a 20 zone is 'maxspeed:type=GB:zone20' |
| 2 | 2024-08-18 19:15 | Pink Duck | Thanks for correcting it. | |
| 154275406 by Pink Duck @ 2024-07-22 18:12 | 1 | 2024-08-02 10:23 | ntzm ♦39 | Is it oneway for bikes too? |
| 2 | 2024-08-02 10:25 | Pink Duck | Yes, but they all illegally cycle either way regardless. | |
| 3 | 2024-08-02 10:26 | Pink Duck | (Well, opposite the one-way is what I meant) | |
| 154252496 by Pink Duck @ 2024-07-22 09:13 | 1 | 2024-07-30 12:12 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | Hi. The tag "maxspeed:type=numeric" is not a correct tag in the UK. Please consult the wiki for correct tagging: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:type |
| 2 | 2024-07-30 12:16 | Pink Duck | It used to be, but seems sign is more popular as a value. It however is a 'correct' tag in the sense of OSM mappers are allowed to tag as they see fit. Nothing is forcing adherence to wiki of the moment. However, since there are only 6 instances of 'numeric' I don't mind cha... | |
| 3 | 2024-07-30 12:42 | Pink Duck | No idea why generic 'sign' type of speed limit sign is favoured over 'numeric' to distinguish between single/dual national or zonal limits though. | |
| 141558526 by Pink Duck @ 2023-09-21 13:01 | 1 | 2024-03-06 20:15 | PikeUK ♦1 | This changeset changed the gate at node 11052482001 to locked=yes. This has prevented some routing software (e.g. plotaroute.com) from routing along the Weavers' Way (which passes over the path this gate is attached to). Can someone confirm if the Weavers' Way really is blocked by a locked... |
| 2 | 2024-03-07 08:42 | Pink Duck | It was pad-locked when I surveyed the route on 21st Sept 2023, with locked=yes to indicate 'usually locked'. Having just checked back to photo the path actually deviates to the left of the vehicle gate and to the right of another left-most post. I have tweaked the mapping accordingly. | |
| 3 | 2024-03-07 18:56 | PikeUK ♦1 | Thanks for the quick response and fix, much appreciated. | |
| 148248134 by Pink Duck @ 2024-03-05 12:25 | 1 | 2024-03-05 14:15 | Pink Duck | Not sure why Mapnik isn’t rendering name of building:part=department, but I think this should remain as is to avoid tagging for renderer. |
| 140053531 by Pink Duck @ 2023-08-18 11:31 | 1 | 2023-10-05 08:08 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | Hi, I was just wondering if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1199453157 is actually a Biergarten (as you've tagged it) as opposed to the British concept of a "Beer Garden" (which is something different). See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=biergarten . |
| 2 | 2023-10-05 08:16 | Pink Duck | The wiki description of the differences between the two is pretty poor. I’m aware of the technical difference in concepts, but in both cases, you can have beer in a garden-like environment. Could put amenity=beergarden perhaps, but which do you think would be more widely understood, rendered a... | |
| 3 | 2023-10-05 08:22 | Pink Duck | Quick TagInfo check for GB showed more biergarten than beer_garden, and just two beergarden instances. | |
| 138058424 by Pink Duck @ 2023-07-03 10:38 | 1 | 2023-07-08 13:56 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Hi,I found some new keys "label_date" and "print_date" here - what is their meaning? |
| 137409727 by Pink Duck @ 2023-06-16 11:16 | 1 | 2023-06-20 09:51 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Hi,the parking tags you used here are outdated. Please have a look at the current tagging scheme:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking |
| 2 | 2023-06-20 09:57 | Pink Duck | Deprecated, yes am aware of that. Since relatively recently mapped will go back over and bring to the newer version. | |
| 3 | 2023-06-20 10:50 | Pink Duck | The latest scheme is actually a little unclear as to what to do with double yellow lane edge lines. Is that parking:left=lane, or parking:left=no, since legal definition is because of the yellow paint, but physically remains possible to park briefly to alight/pick-up passengers/cargo. Opted for lane... | |
| 4 | 2023-06-20 10:58 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Tagging should reflect the legal situation. Physically you can park your car diagonally on a 3 lane motorway... but legally you're not allowed (and shouldn't for obvious reasons) | |
| 5 | 2023-06-20 11:04 | Pink Duck | Except the new scheme deliberately splits physical from legal. Previously just parking:lane:both=no_parking was sufficient. Motorways from rule 240 are generally prohibited from stopping or waiting, so parking:both=no would be fine now. Residentially though as above can actually wait on the double y... | |
| 6 | 2023-06-20 12:04 | mueschel ♦6,575 | I'm not fully aware of the implications of a double yellow line in the UK, but wouldn't "parking lane is present but stopping is forbidden" be parking:both = laneparking:both:restriction = no_stopping? | |
| 7 | 2023-06-20 12:06 | Pink Duck | In UK law it is 'waiting' that is not permitted, with exemption for alighting/picking-up passengers or cargo, typically of under 5 minute duration. So stopping and waiting is conditionally lawful. | |
| 8 | 2023-06-20 12:07 | Pink Duck | Loading can be banned by adding double yellow orthogonal paint to the kerb edge intermittently too. In London there are also double red lines, just to add to the mix. | |
| 9 | 2023-06-20 12:16 | mueschel ♦6,575 | These cases should be covered by restriction = no_stopping / no_standing / no_parking.Wiki says that the UK "no waiting" translates to no_parking which seems to make sense. Maybe you can extend the table for the restriction tag with a hint about UK street markings? | |
| 10 | 2023-06-20 12:19 | Pink Duck | That it does, but is all back on the legal limitation side and not the physical explicit lane tagging.I could add detail about the alighting/loading meaning parking:both=lane is appropriate over parking:both=no for UK double yellow lines. | |
| 60905926 by Pink Duck @ 2018-07-20 12:22 | 1 | 2023-03-21 07:21 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,666 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7625043/historyHello! What you meant by shop=plastic at that location?Can it be described as selling plastic building materials (per their website)?What kind of plastic objects are they selling there? Are they really selling solely plastic objects?\... |
| 2 | 2023-03-21 08:14 | Pink Duck | Wouldn’t shop=toys be more appropriate appropriate for plastic toys? Perhaps add material=plastic? The Eurocell Building Plastics Ltd company sells a full range of UPVC products to homeowners, specifiers & trade customers - so shop=plastic is not a bad fit, and doesn’t imply toys. Th... | |
| 3 | 2023-03-21 08:27 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,666 | > Wouldn’t shop=toys be more appropriate appropriate for plastic toys?I agree, but that would be still be than shop=plastic | |
| 4 | 2023-03-21 08:28 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,666 | > shop=plastic is not a bad fit, and doesn’t imply toys.I asked similar question elsewhere - and there is shop selling broad range of plastic products like toys and houseware equipment, also tagged shop=plastic | |
| 128302714 by Pink Duck @ 2022-10-31 14:42 | 1 | 2022-12-01 13:38 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | The correct name of the street is St Leonards Road https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=bc974527-5c74-422f-8524-b5dbf9ca6867&cp=55.450678~-4.629158&lvl=19&dir=56.370644&pi=-2.8448696&style=x&mo=z.3&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027Please do not change road names that are correctly... |
| 2 | 2022-12-01 15:08 | Pink Duck | Please do not abbreviate road names that mismatch the council official list of streets naming pattern either. The "St." contraction is clearly short form for "Saint" in any case. Perhaps you are one of those who map 'Example Rd.' or 'Mistake Ave.' | |
| 3 | 2022-12-01 16:06 | Cebderby ♦300 | St for Saint is an established name prefix like Mr, Mrs etc and is shown on road signs like this, and normally represented the same in OSM. Abbreviations for road, street etc are not accepted and this is not relevant here. | |
| 4 | 2022-12-01 16:22 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | In addition, the council's official list of roads that you mentioned has the name as Sthttps://www.ayrshireroadsalliance.org/Resources/pdf/Road-Register/South-Ayrshire-Council-List-of-Public-Roads-September-2022.pdf | |
| 5 | 2022-12-01 16:27 | Pink Duck | Well, best you go and edit the name to that then, not "St. Leonards Road" like you did earlier.You are clearly both in the other camp than those who adhere to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Naming_conventionsAt least your council has an up-to-date list of roads. I’ve wat... | |
| 6 | 2022-12-01 16:34 | Cebderby ♦300 | That wiki page is fine for me. Check 3rd paragraph including link referring to British placenames beginning with "St" | |
| 7 | 2022-12-01 16:38 | Pink Duck | The argument for St being an accepted alias of Saint is flawed in my view, from historical origins where brevity was valued in written materials, and in cartography from limited space. In a modern day database there's no reason to not store the full information property (i.e. a road named after... | |
| 8 | 2022-12-01 18:25 | Cebderby ♦300 | St is the full form of the honorific before a saint's name in UK english. All usage of 'Saint'+name is OSM is wrong unless there is local signage or other official documentation that uses that form. A description of the way may be "the road of the saint called Leonard" bu... | |
| 9 | 2022-12-01 18:42 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Not to mention St Andrews... | |
| 87228634 by Pink Duck @ 2020-06-27 15:00 | 1 | 2022-08-01 19:49 | sarukwa ♦9 | Hello :) This is actually Intwood Hall, Intwood Farm is 500m to the West: Confirmed by the Google map on the farm website 'contact us' page, by OS OpenMap Local, and by my own survey today. |
| 2 | 2022-08-02 08:22 | Pink Duck | Some pandemic confusion there it seems, as the farm butcher signage appeared there at the time. I've corrected things up. | |
| 33998268 by Pink Duck @ 2015-09-13 11:52 | 1 | 2022-07-20 23:15 | GlowingUmbreon ♦2 | I believe you mispaced Kerry's Mini Market by a block. It also says that it is in norwich. |
| 2 | 2022-07-21 07:32 | Pink Duck | It was 7 years ago. It looks to have expanded into the adjacent building number since, now 62-64 in addressing. The postal city possibly originally wrong, have corrected to Lowestoft. | |
| 121368696 by Pink Duck @ 2022-05-23 12:59 | 1 | 2022-06-18 18:09 | eteb3 ♦113 | Hi Pink DuckI noticed a small break in the 45 relation at the Holt bypass. You may have the local knowledge to mend it. (You're the last editor on the relation as far as I can see.)Also my note on stop "Santander, opp" in Holt town centre: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3230... |
| 2 | 2022-06-18 18:18 | eteb3 ♦113 | Sorry, I'm bus routes newbie - I've found the answer to the Santander query - shortly to be updated. Break in the relation query stands. | |
| 3 | 2022-06-18 18:45 | Pink Duck | The break in route was caused by the Northern Distributor Road construction (A1270), now named Broadland Northway, but nearly all call it the NDR. I've checked the latest timetable of Sanders Coaches (https://sanderscoaches.com/timetables/45) and revised the route accordingly for the mainstay r... | |
| 4 | 2022-06-18 18:57 | Pink Duck | Not Cawston on review, actually Corpusty and Saxthorpe area. | |
| 118326785 by Pink Duck @ 2022-03-10 14:41 | 1 | 2022-03-10 14:47 | Pink Duck | The 40 mph signs still missing from NSL roundabout eastbound and this directional route being 'road' not 'street' due to absence of residential access means ambiguous legal interpretation of upper limit, with absence of repeaters until nearing Lord Nelson Drive. |
| 113759714 by Pink Duck @ 2021-11-14 11:41 | 1 | 2021-11-14 11:42 | Pink Duck | Former Tesco Metro was at 125 |
| 92580362 by Pink Duck @ 2020-10-16 11:15 | 1 | 2020-10-16 13:25 | Pink Duck | House outlines |
| 22939838 by Pink Duck @ 2014-06-15 08:53 | 1 | 2020-02-23 17:33 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Hi,you added a note and a 'pending' tag here 5 years ago. Could you check the actual status?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288160112/historyThanks! |
| 2 | 2020-02-23 19:34 | Pink Duck | Morrisons is no longer signed there, B&Q has been extended to include it back with similar outside texture/colour. The Computers 4 Africa part has also gone with a Garden Centre canopy making use of the former external space. I've also amended the car park speed limit and added the give way... | |
| 67987925 by Pink Duck @ 2019-03-10 13:02 | 1 | 2019-03-12 19:33 | Borbus ♦31 | The building was already there... |
| 2 | 2019-03-12 19:37 | Pink Duck | Rather amusing to see myself, as the JOSM tiles at the time I noticed it wasn't resulted in that. Presumably when downloading the area I managed to miss all the vertices! | |
| 17200805 by Pink Duck @ 2013-08-03 08:02 | 1 | 2019-02-03 11:42 | SK53 ♦864 | You added Bawburgh Road as a name to the track at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232206196. This looks unlikely as it is not heading towards Bawburgh. Current public notices wrt compulsory purchase orders for the Hornsea 3 windfarm power cables at Algarsthorpe all mention Algarsthorpe as being si... |
| 2 | 2019-02-03 13:45 | Pink Duck | It's quite a few years ago I made that edit and I suspect I was going through public notices in the EDP24 newspaper. Interestingly the OS detailed map still shows it as Bawburgh Road. You're right in that both ends now have private gates and there is the disused village of Algarsthorpe bet... | |
| 3 | 2019-02-03 15:18 | SK53 ♦864 | I'd be more persuaded that this is an OS error given that they also show it as a public road; it's not replicated onto the StreetView layers. | |
| 4 | 2019-02-03 15:36 | Pink Duck | I've checked with the county council FOI request for list of streets and matched up the names and ways for Bawburgh Road, which didn't include the one in question. So I've removed the name and source:name tags now and still suspect it's a historic name that OS has kept but that t... | |
| 65466931 by Pink Duck @ 2018-12-14 09:41 | 1 | 2018-12-23 14:44 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Hi,could you explain what "opening_hours:seasonal" means? When exactly are these hours valid? |
| 2 | 2018-12-23 14:46 | Pink Duck | Whenever the local operator determines essentially, as I was surprised to find they had changed on last survey. In this case, the season is what is commonly known as Christmas, but others could be Easter, New Year's Eve/Day, bank/public holidays, who knows. | |
| 3 | 2018-12-23 14:52 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Interesting... This tag is not used in other places and can't be interpreted by any software. But I also don't have a better idea how to tag not well defined intervals like these. | |
| 4 | 2018-12-23 14:53 | Pink Duck | Indeed, which is why I opted for a reasonable self-made suffix in the hope that software displaying opening hours my be able to parse out the variants for the end-user to comprehend when they apply. Ideally it would all be exact, but real world and all. | |
| 59640251 by Pink Duck @ 2018-06-07 14:48 | 1 | 2018-08-26 11:03 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | 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 | 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. | |
| 35989077 by Pink Duck @ 2015-12-16 14:02 | 1 | 2015-12-27 18:51 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | This looks rather like an automated edit. Was it discussed beforehand?Have you changed any source:ref tags present at the same time as the ref=* keys were changed? Have you also changed ref=U* tags on other highways types (including tracks) to match the new tagging? |
| 2 | 2015-12-27 18:58 | Pink Duck | Yes, an automated edit, but I was the user that set 99.5% of those tags originally. I left the source:ref tag as is, since the refs are unchanged. I messaged you about the U-refs, allowed a week for response, then matched them to the rest. It does state in the wiki that non-signed refs shouldn'... | |
| 3 | 2015-12-27 19:35 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32626353 now has an official_ref=* and no ref=* tag, so surely the source:ref=* tag should be changed to source:official_ref=*. | |
| 4 | 2015-12-27 22:23 | Pink Duck | Yes, agreed - actioned in changeset 36206221. | |
| 5 | 2018-07-31 18:55 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiThere was a discussion in 2015: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017414.html about this. Official_ref was felt to be too generic. There could be more than one 'official' ref from more than one authority. Highway_authority_ref was considered a good solution. ... | |
| 6 | 2018-07-31 19:14 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | I'd agree that official_ref=* isn't really specific enough. FWIW I've been using the shorter highway_ref=* for such official Road numbers where I've needed to add them (principally for what OS marks as ORPAs, once the official status as an unclassified highway has been confirmed ... | |
| 7 | 2018-07-31 19:39 | DaveF ♦1,566 | You make a fair point. However, for now, I'd like to continue with highway_authority_ref. Once unified it can be discussed on the forum. If it's decided another option is better, amending just one tag is so much easier. For clarity I'm amending 'tertiary' roads with a C* ref... | |
| 8 | 2018-08-01 09:30 | Pink Duck | The re-use of "highway" in an alternative reference key name, when there's already a highway main key, seems a bit excess to me. These references after all are mostly issued and used by the main official provider, be that a transport authority or street name and numbering department o... | |
| 60346844 by Pink Duck @ 2018-07-02 12:24 | 1 | 2018-07-02 12:35 | Pink Duck | Not sure what happened there, was uploaded in JOSM with title "Store closure (signs remain)" and source "survey". |
| 54506868 by Pink Duck @ 2017-12-10 10:43 | 1 | 2018-01-09 14:23 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | Three ways http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/545809287 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/545809288 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/545809289 created in this changeset have been tegged as designation=public_footpath .But they don't appear to be recorded as such in the official council dat... |
| 2 | 2018-01-09 16:00 | Pink Duck | I didn't add those tags, they were just copied to branched parts of new ways without history showing that fact. So I can't qualify the nature of public right of way. I suggest you add a map note. | |
| 3 | 2018-01-09 16:04 | Pink Duck | Having taken a quick look at Street View I noticed a small sign from the south-bound direction, suggesting "Public Footpath" was tagged as though official, instead of the probable recommendation to avoid people crossing on the bridge asphalt there. I've removed those tags now. | |
| 19286396 by Pink Duck @ 2013-12-05 10:32 | 1 | 2018-01-01 12:33 | mueschel ♦6,575 | Hi,I found a strange tag on two ways here:parking:condition:right:maxspeed= 30 mphI hope parked cars don't move at all :-)Could you check that?E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/250098973Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2018-01-01 15:37 | Pink Duck | Puzzling that, and rightly pointed out, so thanks. I've removed those curious tags from the two adjacent ways, given the existing speed limit is already 30 mph there (though due to change to 20 mph in April). | |
| 51059042 by Pink Duck @ 2017-08-12 13:58 | 1 | 2017-08-13 21:48 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | 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 | Good spot, seems I tagged that erroneously thinking it was only bus/taxis/cycle but the restrictive sign is indeed just for motor vehicles. | |
| 46958061 by Pink Duck @ 2017-03-18 14:35 | 1 | 2017-06-28 10:27 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | It looks as if you added the postbox http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4741573657 in this changeset, but there is an existing oostbox node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3741485701 a meter or so away. Are there actually two boxes at this location, as the OSM data now suggests? |
| 2 | 2017-06-28 15:57 | Pink Duck | Curious that, perhaps an excess tag paste on to an adjusted location from aerial imagery alignment during editing (as the wrong mounting value hints). There was only one box there, so I have deleted my newer node and refined the position of existing slightly. | |
| 48862102 by Pink Duck @ 2017-05-21 13:17 | 1 | 2017-06-02 22:09 | michael_t ♦1 | Are you local to this area? I'm trying to find out precisely how far the Parish Hall is up The Londs, but Google Street View doesn't go down there. I don't suppose you have local knowledge? Thanks. |
| 2 | 2017-06-03 11:03 | Pink Duck | Have only memory of walking around the area from a year or so ago, driving past and Bing aerial. Looking at the aerial imagery again for The Londis there does look to be a sizeable building with non-residential new-looking roofing. So I've drawn that and tagged it. Suggest you confirm via http:... | |
| 3 | 2017-06-03 11:26 | michael_t ♦1 | Thanks! | |
| 47999441 by Pink Duck @ 2017-04-21 11:07 | 1 | 2017-05-18 12:18 | MJ Ray ♦1 | This change fractured the cycle routing, which I have now corrected. |
| 2 | 2017-05-18 13:32 | Pink Duck | I didn't realise, my apologies about that. Thanks for fixing it early. Overall the change to valid speed limits was worth it for the interim period. I normally try to ensure relations remain unaffected. | |
| 3 | 2017-05-18 15:01 | Pink Duck | I've reviewed your changes and enhanced the route relation further given the crossings of Hardwick Road and Scania Way. | |
| 4 | 2017-05-19 12:30 | MJ Ray ♦1 | No worries and thanks. Should https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/494448271 be oneway:bicycle=no or will share_sidewalk (which I can't find documented) enable that anyway? I suspect that in time, I will have to add the tracks in that area as distinct ways anyway. | |
| 5 | 2017-05-19 19:21 | Pink Duck | I don't think there was anything explicitly saying the cycle access was one-directional. It just happens to be along the southern end of Hardwick Road where the best facilities are. I tend to tag with cycleway:left=share_sidewalk when there's no physical separation aside from kerb between ... | |
| 47618516 by Pink Duck @ 2017-04-10 10:56 | 1 | 2017-05-08 08:56 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | Hi, I'm curious about the status of the ways such as http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/481829976 that you marked as designation=public_footpath here.AFAIK, the route of these isn't recorded by NCC on the Definitive Map as a Public Footpath. But do you have reason to believe that the Cou... |
| 2 | 2017-05-08 10:00 | Pink Duck | As am I. There's an information notice displayed near to Willow House, that expired in 2007. I queried this with Norwich Council but they stated it was not a project of theirs, but that the information was still useful. Only the landowner will know for sure. I have often walked that route durin... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-08 10:21 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | Interesting. So what did/does the notice say? | |
| 4 | 2017-05-08 11:18 | Pink Duck | See https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ah1Oa_WAIEBgxXkxjWDnjhKKNGGS (JPG, 2.5 MB) | |
| 5 | 2017-05-08 12:43 | Robert Whittaker ♦274 | I wonder where they got the Public Footpath information from then. There's no sign of anything on the definitive map: http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/definitivemaps/TG10NE.pdf | |
| 47835897 by Pink Duck @ 2017-04-16 11:21 | 1 | 2017-04-17 17:01 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | 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 | 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 | 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... | |
| 27379544 by Pink Duck @ 2014-12-10 15:33 | 1 | 2016-12-30 22:48 | opottone ♦11 | Looking at NaPTAN database I only saw 9100BUCKNHM, not 9100BUCKNHM0 nor 9100BUCKNHM1. Is this some standard extension? Or perhaps old data? |
| 2 | 2016-12-31 10:41 | Pink Duck | The former is the stop code area reference, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4264945/historyThe latter two look to be a zero-based suffix to describe the individual stop points.Those tags are from around two years ago so the NaPTAN DB may have changed since. | |
| 3 | 2017-01-01 06:04 | opottone ♦11 | NaPTAN could have changed since, or this could be some nonstandard way to distinguish the different platforms. Anyway, I assume you don't object if I change both codes to 9100BUCKNHM. | |
| 4 | 2017-01-01 11:43 | Pink Duck | I would recommend checking with the current NaPTAN data first, but I don't mind. | |
| 34979823 by Pink Duck @ 2015-10-30 19:56 | 1 | 2016-11-29 18:21 | kreuzschnabel ♦801 | Put back into operation. It’s listed on the Shell station locator and on filllpg.co.uk as well (latest price update Nov 1st). |
| 28999391 by Pink Duck @ 2015-02-21 14:01 | 1 | 2016-07-03 17:46 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | Hi,What is a Rambler's Gate (as in http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3363330366 )? An image search turns up a stepover stile - or is it something else? |
| 2 | 2016-07-03 19:15 | Pink Duck | It was a gate similar to that shown at http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-ramblers-gate-on-a-public-footpath-by-the-river-bure-at-little-hautbois-59542871.htmlWhich is where I likely got the name from, not spotting a suitable match on the OSM wiki barrier page. The phrase "squeeze gate"... | |
| 3 | 2016-08-21 19:54 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | Interesting - I've seen a couple of those, but was never really sure whether to map them as gates or stiles! | |
| 36285814 by Pink Duck @ 2015-12-31 16:22 | 1 | 2016-02-19 21:21 | SK53 ♦864 | Did you not note the pub in Waltham when you did this survey |
| 2 | 2016-02-20 09:53 | Pink Duck | I think I recall there being one at the junction but was distracted by driving and an incident with an old lady and postman at the time arguing. | |
| 3 | 2016-02-20 12:51 | Pink Duck | I've added The Royal Horseshoes, that appears to still be active. The Marquis of Granby nearby permanently closed according to WhatPub.com. | |
| 33277130 by Pink Duck @ 2015-08-11 20:09 | 1 | 2015-08-17 12:23 | Richard ♦220 | Hi,Great to see the mapping of the Norwich cycle network."Orange Pedalway" etc. aren't really refs. Refs are short numeric/alphabetic references used on signs. "Orange Pedalway" is a name.Many routers/renderers use 'shields' to show refs, and a ref with... |
| 2 | 2015-08-17 17:08 | Pink Duck | They are more of a name than ref, agreed. I changed it since routing agents (e.g. OsmAnd) were saying "turn right on to Orange", which made no sense when spoken. The colours are already stored against the route relations. I shall probably remove the ref altogether and put the pedalway name... | |
| 3 | 2015-08-17 17:23 | Richard ♦220 | That's great - thank you! | |
| 4 | 2015-08-17 18:51 | Pink Duck | It would also be great if the local cycle network with HTML colour tag could be rendered in the Cycle Map render :) | |
| 27385938 by Pink Duck @ 2014-12-10 20:38 | 1 | 2014-12-14 14:53 | robert ♦234 | Are you sure about the naming here? OS Locator seems to disagre with you http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=641665 |
| 2 | 2014-12-14 17:56 | Pink Duck | I suspect that was an editing mistake, since it is Royal Terrace from Royal Parade North to the top, with addressing suggesting that to the right of that it is Royal Plain. |