| Changeset | No. | Date | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51059042 by Pink Duck | 1 | 2017-08-13 21:48:30 UTC | Mike Baggaley | 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 06:43:35 UTC | 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 | 1 | 2017-06-28 10:27:56 UTC | Robert Whittaker | 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 15:57:24 UTC | 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 | 1 | 2017-06-02 22:09:08 UTC | michael_t | 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 11:03:33 UTC | 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://www... | |
| 3 | 2017-06-03 11:26:56 UTC | michael_t | Thanks! | |
| 47999441 by Pink Duck | 1 | 2017-05-18 12:18:30 UTC | MJ Ray | This change fractured the cycle routing, which I have now corrected. |
| 2 | 2017-05-18 13:32:48 UTC | 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 15:01:11 UTC | 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 12:30:57 UTC | MJ Ray | 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 19:21:44 UTC | 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 the road a... | |
| 47618516 by Pink Duck | 1 | 2017-05-08 08:56:44 UTC | Robert Whittaker | 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 Council is in... |
| 2 | 2017-05-08 10:00:50 UTC | 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 during my ... | |
| 3 | 2017-05-08 10:21:45 UTC | Robert Whittaker | Interesting. So what did/does the notice say? | |
| 4 | 2017-05-08 11:18:25 UTC | Pink Duck | See https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ah1Oa_WAIEBgxXkxjWDnjhKKNGGS (JPG, 2.5 MB) | |
| 5 | 2017-05-08 12:43:04 UTC | Robert Whittaker | 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 | 1 | 2017-04-17 17:01:49 UTC | Mike Baggaley | 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 08:09:33 UTC | 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 15:06:30 UTC | 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 | 1 | 2016-12-30 22:48:11 UTC | opottone | 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 10:41:29 UTC | 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 06:04:29 UTC | opottone | 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 11:43:39 UTC | Pink Duck | I would recommend checking with the current NaPTAN data first, but I don't mind. | |
| 34979823 by Pink Duck | 1 | 2016-11-29 18:21:59 UTC | kreuzschnabel | 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 | 1 | 2016-07-03 17:46:34 UTC | SomeoneElse | 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 19:15:56 UTC | 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 19:54:53 UTC | SomeoneElse | 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 | 1 | 2016-02-19 21:21:07 UTC | SK53 | Did you not note the pub in Waltham when you did this survey |
| 2 | 2016-02-20 09:53:58 UTC | 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 12:51:36 UTC | 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. | |
| 35989077 by Pink Duck | 1 | 2015-12-27 18:51:24 UTC | Robert Whittaker | 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 18:58:58 UTC | 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't use... | |
| 3 | 2015-12-27 19:35:48 UTC | Robert Whittaker | 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 22:23:51 UTC | Pink Duck | Yes, agreed - actioned in changeset 36206221. | |
| 33277130 by Pink Duck | 1 | 2015-08-17 12:23:37 UTC | Richard | 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 15 characters ... |
| 2 | 2015-08-17 17:08:01 UTC | 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 17:23:01 UTC | Richard | That's great - thank you! | |
| 4 | 2015-08-17 18:51:58 UTC | 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 | 1 | 2014-12-14 14:53:06 UTC | robert | 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 17:56:49 UTC | 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. | |