| Country | Changeset | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
 | 68975542 (Comments: 2) | Mike Parfitt (Discussed changesets: 15) | Hi Adrian, Given that both ends of Shillingford Lane join public highways, then unclassified is the better tag. Mike commented 2025-07-12 18:34:42 UTC by Mike Parfitt ♦13 |
| 168839500 (Comments: 1) | Denay Samosa (Discussed changesets: 5) | Hi again. This 'shop' is not verifiable by anyone visiting the location. I know it to be a residential house, not a shop with any publicly accessible premises. Temporary objects like vehicles should not be mapped either. Hope that ... commented 2025-07-12 16:02:54 UTC by Bexhill-OSM ♦95 |
| 168750324 (Comments: 2) | JAKeys (Discussed changesets: 1) | Thanks! I think I've fixed the footbridge. commented 2025-07-12 13:29:26 UTC by JAKeys ♦1 |
| 168424600 (Comments: 15) | amalash (Discussed changesets: 2) | For info, the DWG got a nudge which mentioned this changeset discussion (not, I hasten to add, a complaint about it directly). I think a forum thread might make more sense (it'd be a bit more visible and allow easier linking) so I've creat... commented 2025-07-12 13:00:59 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,390 |
| 168790166 (Comments: 5) | Poggs (Discussed changesets: 1) | Please ref:GB (because country codes are in upper letters, language codes are in lower letters ) :) commented 2025-07-12 10:58:03 UTC by user_5359 ♦19,400 |
| 144096320 (Comments: 1) | Pineappleswordtail16 (Discussed changesets: 1) | Good changeset comment, size and theme. In future where practicable please state the sources of the information. Aerial imagery was probably used to identify the roads and align map them but the speed limit signs are not directly visible in the aeria... commented 2025-07-11 17:48:55 UTC by Gregory Peony ♦639 |
| 140773555 (Comments: 2) | phodgkin (Discussed changesets: 34) | I thought that was probably the case, but best to get local knowledge. Fixed! commented 2025-07-11 17:20:21 UTC by phodgkin ♦62 |
| 168749415 (Comments: 2) | Matthew0903 (Discussed changesets: 2) | Carpark corner node resolved in below changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168768992 Footpath nodes resolved in below changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168805368 For bicycle access tags, see comments... commented 2025-07-11 16:37:16 UTC by MorahT ♦23 |
| 168748479 (Comments: 3) | Matthew0903 (Discussed changesets: 2) | Thank you for confirming. While it's wide enough to be a shared path, I can't see any physical signs, ground markings or other information (such as the Swindon Travel Choices/Wichelstowe websites, etc.) indicating bicycles have access righ... commented 2025-07-11 16:34:45 UTC by MorahT ♦23 |
| 48673781 (Comments: 1) | Ralphie Raccoon (Discussed changesets: 2) | Can you take look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4849890 ? commented 2025-07-11 12:18:38 UTC by Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 |
| 69670026 (Comments: 1) | dudone (Discussed changesets: 94) | Can you take look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4849889#map=15/53.00729/-1.51240 ? commented 2025-07-11 12:18:18 UTC by Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 |
| 139261466 (Comments: 1) | ohmanger (Discussed changesets: 24) | Can you take look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4849892#map=15/52.69386/-2.76897&layers=N ? commented 2025-07-11 12:16:11 UTC by Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 |
| 168743806 (Comments: 4) | Dave Stret (Discussed changesets: 5) | hi there, no worries, i figured it was something like that. Your changeset comment made your intentions clear, which is very helpful and made it easy to fix :) in your editor, you can for example add the tag access=private to the part of ... commented 2025-07-11 11:08:20 UTC by dadavid ♦421 |
| 168757021 (Comments: 2) | Kraeson (Discussed changesets: 1) | I accidentally created the path incorrectly commented 2025-07-11 09:15:00 UTC by Kraeson ♦1 |
| 168743732 (Comments: 1) | Cesca Brint (Discussed changesets: 2) | Unless pedestrian access is explicitly prohibited with a traffic sign and associated traffic order, it is not illegal to walk on any public road in the UK. Access tags in OSM reflect the legal position, not an opinion on whether or not it might be sa... commented 2025-07-11 09:13:12 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,477 |
| 144141153 (Comments: 3) | confusedbuffalo (Discussed changesets: 84) | OK, thanks. Done in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168784528 commented 2025-07-11 08:59:32 UTC by Casey_boy ♦83 |
| 168777566 (Comments: 1) | Refteck Solution (Discussed changesets: 2) | Removing the highway=trunk tag from part of the Westbound carriageway of the A232 Barclay Road doesn't strike me as being particularly professional. If this hadn't been fixed promptly, it would have caused problems for OSM-based routing sof... commented 2025-07-11 08:57:45 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,477 |
| 140321605 (Comments: 3) | Robert Whittaker (Discussed changesets: 123) | shop=office_equipment ? There is quite a lot of confusion with office/shop tagging so maybe more verbosity would be a good idea? Or maybe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Doffice should be documented at wiki as perfectly fine valu... commented 2025-07-11 08:44:22 UTC by Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,659 |
| 168755842 (Comments: 1) | Chlxrb123* (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I've reverted this changeset because it dragged highways out of position. This could have disrupted routing. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-07-11 04:12:04 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,856 |
| 168717791 (Comments: 3) | SomeoneElse2 (Discussed changesets: 59) | Hah, yes, I can see how that could happen. Thanks for fixing it (For anyone else who reads this, it was fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168764186) commented 2025-07-10 23:28:32 UTC by gurglypipe ♦873 |
| 168668748 (Comments: 2) | VLD298 (Discussed changesets: 3) | Hello rskedgell, The "foot=no" tag was added to maintain consistency with the adjacent cycleway sections, which already had this tag. I see that you have made a few tag adjustments already, but if you would also like to remove the f... commented 2025-07-10 19:52:32 UTC by VLD298 ♦3 |
| 168659259 (Comments: 2) | VLD298 (Discussed changesets: 3) | Hi rskedgell, I have updated the crossing:markings tag as you suggested. Thank you for the feedback. -VLD298 commented 2025-07-10 19:33:32 UTC by VLD298 ♦3 |
| 168644966 (Comments: 4) | Smileworks Aesthetic Training HUB (Discussed changesets: 1) | Thank you for removing the mentioned description @ https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168647338 The removed boundary-tag has been reverted @ https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168734135 commented 2025-07-10 18:47:04 UTC by NeisReview ♦940 |
| 164867187 (Comments: 2) | Sofia_111 (Discussed changesets: 2) | Yes. The Service Road for parking are still David Street, just not a proper road. commented 2025-07-10 14:51:51 UTC by Sofia_111 ♦2 |
| 168001470 (Comments: 1) | Dave Stret (Discussed changesets: 5) | reverted, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168743806#c1460196 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168744750 commented 2025-07-10 13:51:09 UTC by dadavid ♦421 |
| 160091603 (Comments: 1) | Dave Stret (Discussed changesets: 5) | reverted, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168743806#c1460196 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168744750 commented 2025-07-10 13:51:09 UTC by dadavid ♦421 |
| 162346594 (Comments: 1) | Dave Stret (Discussed changesets: 5) | reverted, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168743806#c1460196 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168744750 commented 2025-07-10 13:51:09 UTC by dadavid ♦421 |
| 167226724 (Comments: 1) | Dave Stret (Discussed changesets: 5) | reverted, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168743806#c1460196 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168744750 commented 2025-07-10 13:51:09 UTC by dadavid ♦421 |
| 168744453 (Comments: 1) | bbqman (Discussed changesets: 38) | source: bing commented 2025-07-10 13:49:08 UTC by bbqman ♦32 |
| 162757064 (Comments: 3) | eastender (Discussed changesets: 32) | Fair enough, I have revisited the site several times. A new plate has now been inserted and I've updated the node on OSM. commented 2025-07-10 08:40:41 UTC by john paul jones & gringo ♦19 |
| 168051913 (Comments: 3) | Rupert Swarbrick (Discussed changesets: 3) | The box outside Culbowie Lodge seems like a private post-box, belonging to the Lodge. It may have an old Collection Plate inserted or even a made-up one. I don't know, but you've seen it so you know best. https://osm.mathmos.net/postboxes/... commented 2025-07-10 08:35:24 UTC by john paul jones & gringo ♦19 |
| 168463254 (Comments: 1) | Railwayfan2005 (Discussed changesets: 39) | Thanks, that looks fine to me. commented 2025-07-09 20:28:26 UTC by Chris Fleming ♦375 |
| 168626436 (Comments: 3) | samon53 (Discussed changesets: 9) | Thanks for correcting my typo. commented 2025-07-09 14:44:03 UTC by DaveF ♦1,564 |
| 168680850 (Comments: 1) | Wanderer130 (Discussed changesets: 1) | (Review requested) That looks fine, thanks for updating it. commented 2025-07-09 09:10:18 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,477 |
| 151963612 (Comments: 3) | spiregrain (Discussed changesets: 46) | Corrected in changeset 168681504. If you come across a few similar errors, feel free to correct them. If it looks like I've systematically made this error in loads of places, please let me know, and I'll fire up JOSM at the weekend... commented 2025-07-09 07:53:28 UTC by spiregrain ♦198 |
| 168647436 (Comments: 2) | BarryMyles (Discussed changesets: 14) | "a" ?!? commented 2025-07-08 23:51:55 UTC by BarryMyles ♦10 |
| 34673400 (Comments: 1) | Zain Ahmad Hashmi (Discussed changesets: 30) | Vandalising OSM by adding entirely fictitious and legally implausible weight restrictions does not "improve" anything. commented 2025-07-08 14:14:52 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,477 |
| 34673202 (Comments: 1) | Zain Ahmad Hashmi (Discussed changesets: 30) | Liar. commented 2025-07-08 13:50:04 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,477 |
| 168645201 (Comments: 1) | Rank Audits (Discussed changesets: 1) | Welcome to OpenStreetMap. If your business is only on the 3rd floor of Nena House, it would be better to add it as either a node (point), with the additional tags level=3 and addr:floor=3rd Floor. As it stands, you have overwritten tags... commented 2025-07-08 13:00:48 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,477 |
| 168184769 (Comments: 2) | Przemek_Bo (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi jpennycook. My sources do not explicitly specify the construction status of Whitehill Lane - way 1410049365 and way 1410049366. So as per your suggestion, I've restored the construction status of those ways in this changeset (https://www.o... commented 2025-07-08 12:55:50 UTC by Przemek_Bo ♦2 |
| 165611883 (Comments: 2) | JassKurn (Discussed changesets: 47) | Yes, and you've reminded me that I've got to update it. Water started flowing into the quarry to the east, and land to west was washed into quarry. At time I mapped it the area was flooded but receding, so didn't add water. The... commented 2025-07-08 11:37:43 UTC by JassKurn ♦154 |
| 168329674 (Comments: 3) | LordGarySugar (Discussed changesets: 15) | Thank you. commented 2025-07-08 01:47:05 UTC by VictorIE ♦911 |
| 168617510 (Comments: 1) | supergooper (Discussed changesets: 2) | Hi there Supergooper, croeso i OSM Are you sure this is a bar? In the editor, you can click on the little "i" icon and it will give you a description of the tag and take you to the wiki where you can find more information ... commented 2025-07-07 19:03:38 UTC by ceirios ♦48 |
| 168571150 (Comments: 2) | philipcullen (Discussed changesets: 18) | I hadn't intended to create any new residential areas - I think I've managed to trigger a bug in a JOSM plugin that's modified them when splitting buildings (it crashed a couple of times whilst editing). Thanks for putting it right. commented 2025-07-07 18:11:43 UTC by philipcullen ♦9 |
| 168482986 (Comments: 3) | phodgkin (Discussed changesets: 34) | Thanks 👍 commented 2025-07-07 16:51:51 UTC by gurglypipe ♦873 |
| 168609491 (Comments: 1) | supergooper (Discussed changesets: 2) | Not for service roads commented 2025-07-07 14:54:40 UTC by Le_Sharkoïste ♦63 |
| 168579809 (Comments: 1) | Andrew Chadwick (Discussed changesets: 25) | * so that it sorts together with the Lion 4 commented 2025-07-06 21:52:53 UTC by Andrew Chadwick ♦57 |
| 168572599 (Comments: 1) | SOSOwner (Discussed changesets: 8) | And the links... https://bustimes.org/services/31-chelmsford-bus-stn-burnham-clock-tower#map https://bustimes.org/services/331-chelmsford-bus-stn-burnham-clock-tower#map https://bustimes.org/services/332-chelmsford-bus-stn-burnham-clock-towe... commented 2025-07-06 17:55:05 UTC by SOSOwner ♦8 |
| 168440080 (Comments: 2) | Russ (Discussed changesets: 47) | We disagree with this removal for the reason that these are well-established informal paths, providing utility outside the festival period. Burning Man paths are similarly kept alive between festivals. This should be reverted. See comme... commented 2025-07-06 17:04:06 UTC by CycleStreets ♦27 |
| 168567831 (Comments: 1) | SOSOwner (Discussed changesets: 8) | I had actually forgotten to change the names of the X10 and X30 routes back. While mapping-out the routes, I used codes to denote if the routes were heading via different locations (BH for Broomfield Hospital, GD for Great Dunmow, GW for Great Waltha... commented 2025-07-06 16:06:10 UTC by SOSOwner ♦8 |
| 161283330 (Comments: 1) | nickjohnston (Discussed changesets: 25) | Hi, If this is local to you, please could you confirm whether there is any signed weight restriction on this road? It was tagged by another user with maxweight=10, which is incorrect and legally implausible (UK signage can restrict maxw... commented 2025-07-06 11:30:53 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,477 |
| 168555379 (Comments: 1) | BrookeP (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi BrookeP, If you click 'Edit', then go into the 'background settings' layer menu there is a very useful layer in 'Overlays' called 'OSMUK Cadastral Parcels'. This can help you plot individual houses rathe... commented 2025-07-06 10:45:04 UTC by Jez Nicholson ♦71 |