| Country | Changeset | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
 | 172057056 (Comments: 1) | karf101 (Discussed changesets: 3) | Hello, Thanks for extending this here. I think that some bits might need a bit of trimming though - http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=18268797 shows a few unjoined pieces. Best Regards, Andy commented 2025-09-17 18:47:50 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 172050094 (Comments: 9) | Jauntstar (Discussed changesets: 3) | Geometry simplified in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172067976 Looking at the edit history, it looks like the person who overcomplicated the geometry there was me. I think this was the first major road I'd to which I'd adde... commented 2025-09-17 14:36:47 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 172050850 (Comments: 4) | Jauntstar (Discussed changesets: 3) | You did, thank you. commented 2025-09-17 13:18:26 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 171994426 (Comments: 2) | World_Winner (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hi rskedgell, Thank you for your valuable feedback. I’m going ahead and applying the current tagging scheme for streetside parking regulations: parking:both:restriction:conditional=no_parking @ (Mo-Fr 08:30-18:30) For the access restricti... commented 2025-09-17 11:51:55 UTC by World_Winner ♦5 |
| 172050423 (Comments: 1) | Jauntstar (Discussed changesets: 3) | (Review requested) Unfortunately, you have disconnected Thomas More Street from East Smithfield, which would cause problems for routing software. Everyone makes mistakes in OSM and this was easy to fix, so no harm has been done. ... commented 2025-09-17 11:47:38 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 172015141 (Comments: 3) | etgg (Discussed changesets: 18) | Super, thanks! And thanks for the rest of your edits around Haweswater recently. It's nice to see some more detail being added to the place :) commented 2025-09-17 11:31:06 UTC by gurglypipe ♦920 |
| 172057282 (Comments: 1) | roadatlas1 (Discussed changesets: 1) | Thanks for updating this. If a road no longer has a number, it may be better to delete the ref=* tag, or change it to was:ref=* rather than using ref=Unclassified If you've got access to GIS software, you might find that OS Open Ro... commented 2025-09-17 11:22:52 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 171933598 (Comments: 2) | Ieuan Jenkins (Discussed changesets: 3) | Thanks Bernard! Appreciated 🙏 commented 2025-09-17 09:56:04 UTC by Ieuan Jenkins ♦3 |
| 172023974 (Comments: 1) | UtterClutter (Discussed changesets: 27) | These edits have been reverted after complaints made to the Data Working Group. Please do not add such data which has the potential to put the occupants at risk to OSM in the future. commented 2025-09-17 08:23:52 UTC by trigpoint ♦2,389 |
| 171884705 (Comments: 6) | UtterClutter (Discussed changesets: 27) | Is there any reason to not delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19597996 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19484702 ? commented 2025-09-17 07:00:32 UTC by Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,017 |
| 172008085 (Comments: 3) | Ridealux_com (Discussed changesets: 1) | That's done! Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-17 05:54:44 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |
| 172019682 (Comments: 4) | UtterClutter (Discussed changesets: 27) | I believe this should be discussed on the UK forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 My, initial, late night thoughts. 1) The data does not belong in a relation, but as a tag related to use of Hotel 2) Data does ... commented 2025-09-17 00:25:18 UTC by JassKurn ♦161 |
| 172011045 (Comments: 1) | World_Winner (Discussed changesets: 6) | Thanks! commented 2025-09-16 23:31:59 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 172033352 (Comments: 1) | SuborbitalPigeon (Discussed changesets: 12) | Do you have a particular vendetta against me Mr. Pigeon? I consider this vandalism. I will give you this opportunity to explain yourself. commented 2025-09-16 21:00:48 UTC by UtterClutter ♦28 |
| 171849466 (Comments: 1) | cryptus939 (Discussed changesets: 2) | Hi cryptus, Whilst this pub has closed I don't believe the building itself has been demolished. I see that you have made a lot of contributions regarding removal of pub buildings. Unless the building has been demolished the building itself... commented 2025-09-16 20:15:44 UTC by LSWLDN ♦2 |
| 171848313 (Comments: 1) | cryptus939 (Discussed changesets: 2) | Hi cryptus, Good to see a contribution to the local area. I believe I was the last user to modify these buildings. The building for this old pub is still here, the pub building was demolished however it was rebuilt alongside the Watteville ... commented 2025-09-16 20:06:30 UTC by LSWLDN ♦2 |
| 172016802 (Comments: 1) | atnight (Discussed changesets: 1) | I've removed the Coop brand and operator tags. commented 2025-09-16 14:18:16 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |
| 172007739 (Comments: 1) | AA_NP (Discussed changesets: 2) | Reported where? Deleting the name from a campsite won’t mark it as closed in OSM. Instead, you need to change name=blah to old_name=blah, and tourism=campsite to disused:tourism=campsite as per the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lif... commented 2025-09-16 11:10:52 UTC by gurglypipe ♦920 |
| 171126371 (Comments: 4) | Pete Owens (Discussed changesets: 105) | I’ve changed the church access road to maxspeed=5mph in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172003094 as per the above reasoning. commented 2025-09-16 09:13:09 UTC by gurglypipe ♦920 |
| 171992426 (Comments: 1) | DavidKC (Discussed changesets: 1) | Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this. Although adding bicycle=no etc. to footpaths tagged as highway=footway doesn't do any harm, it also doesn't really have any effect on routing software which uses OSM data. The im... commented 2025-09-16 08:29:52 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 171987491 (Comments: 1) | spiffy mapper (Discussed changesets: 2) | Thanks for resolving my note so quickly! I've replaced the maxweight:hgv tag with maxweightrating:hgv which corresponds to that sign. If it had been a weak bridge sign, it would have been either maxweightrating (modern sign) or maxweight ... commented 2025-09-16 07:16:56 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 171986644 (Comments: 1) | SOSOwner (Discussed changesets: 11) | Bus route 70 itself also needs correcting as it no longer operates east of Braintree East Tesco. https://bustimes.org/services/70-marks-farm-tesco-chelmsford-bus-stn commented 2025-09-15 21:29:00 UTC by SOSOwner ♦11 |
| 171947654 (Comments: 1) | BCNorwich (Discussed changesets: 232) | Sorry about that, thanks for fixing! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171947654 commented 2025-09-15 19:10:28 UTC by RushMM ♦2 |
| 166124886 (Comments: 2) | ZenPhil (Discussed changesets: 25) | Hey - no I think you’re right. I’ll try and grab the correct one some time. commented 2025-09-15 18:02:25 UTC by ZenPhil ♦23 |
| 171887470 (Comments: 3) | stick2 (Discussed changesets: 8) | Why not just split the buildings before you upload them and save someone else a job later, there's nothing wrong with doing things right first time. I don't see why I should be the one to split these, when you're the one importing thes... commented 2025-09-15 17:17:13 UTC by LordGarySugar ♦89 |
| 156767409 (Comments: 3) | TonyS999 (Discussed changesets: 12) | Thanks! commented 2025-09-15 16:25:17 UTC by LordGarySugar ♦89 |
| 171965638 (Comments: 1) | Clitheroe Warrior (Discussed changesets: 5) | Thanks! :) That should reduce the chance of future confusion. commented 2025-09-15 15:18:55 UTC by gurglypipe ♦920 |
| 162946607 (Comments: 1) | kesterlester (Discussed changesets: 12) | Hi, how are you mapping these underground features? It's something I could be interested in pursuing myself but unsure about how to source the information. commented 2025-09-15 15:04:13 UTC by mstrbrid ♦48 |
| 171950780 (Comments: 2) | Clitheroe Warrior (Discussed changesets: 5) | added - thanks :) commented 2025-09-15 13:10:29 UTC by Clitheroe Warrior ♦2 |
| 167840407 (Comments: 2) | 12pjw34 (Discussed changesets: 14) | All changed to no, footpath left as designated or yes. Done this way as not all have access & using yes in the "all" box designates usage for everything. commented 2025-09-15 13:06:45 UTC by 12pjw34 ♦7 |
| 171948594 (Comments: 1) | Clitheroe Warrior (Discussed changesets: 5) | Thanks for the updates here! A quick note on deletions: where possible it’s better to keep an existing area, tweak its layout (including splitting or combining it if needed) and change its tagging to reflect its current use; rather than deletin... commented 2025-09-15 10:36:17 UTC by gurglypipe ♦920 |
| 171942127 (Comments: 1) | Bubble Epic (Discussed changesets: 8) | DWG revert - sockpuppet vandalism https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171942338 commented 2025-09-15 02:18:41 UTC by Fizzie-DWG ♦32,263 |
| 171906766 (Comments: 1) | no details provided here (Discussed changesets: 16) | Hi, Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1429686756 really a building? It does not look like one on bing and others. commented 2025-09-15 00:02:48 UTC by Hufkratzer ♦803 |
| 147223485 (Comments: 4) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | @NTAshridgeEstatePaths Please do reply to these changeset comments. When I submit this comment you will get sent an email you will get sent a link to this changeset. Click through that and you can comment yourself (write a comment in the box and cl... commented 2025-09-14 23:55:41 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 148160630 (Comments: 3) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello, You've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1215964867 (see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bEM ) here. Although it's in the trees, it is still somewhat visible in imagery, so if you want to prevent anyone re-adding it I strong... commented 2025-09-14 23:47:35 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 171412997 (Comments: 3) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello, You'd deleted the tracks / footpaths here and I've restored them, because your deletion may cause someone to re-add it from imagery (where it is clearly visible), and if they do that they will not add access tags. I have added ... commented 2025-09-14 23:38:10 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 167225787 (Comments: 3) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello, You'd deleted the private track here (which was tagged as a private track). I've restored the private track because your deletion may cause someone to re-add it from imagery (where it is clearly visible), and if they do that they... commented 2025-09-14 23:33:22 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 167225932 (Comments: 3) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Like https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171412889 this also deleted a public right of way. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.77428/-0.53272/H/P shows that. If it genuinely has been rerouted or closed by the local authori... commented 2025-09-14 23:30:29 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 171412889 (Comments: 4) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello NTAshridgeEstatePaths, As some people have already said, you'd deleted a number of public rights of way. The one here can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/51.8328/-0.6079/O/P (the green overlays on that map ... commented 2025-09-14 23:26:30 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 171409267 (Comments: 4) | The Vyne (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello "The Vyne", and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I wonder if there's been a bit of a miscommunication about "permissive access" here? Something that the general public have a legal right to access (e.g. a public footpath) ... commented 2025-09-14 22:34:32 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 171934701 (Comments: 1) | SomeoneElse2 (Discussed changesets: 61) | Yes it has! commented 2025-09-14 19:56:55 UTC by SomeoneElse2 ♦460 |
| 171922553 (Comments: 1) | isJambo (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The pub is already mapped as an outline of the premises, Way: The Regal (1204234283). I've removed the POI as it's duplication of data. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-14 17:07:02 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |
| 171924507 (Comments: 1) | Nottingham Tree Surgeons (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM! Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and fo... commented 2025-09-14 15:42:40 UTC by NeisBot ♦2,664 |
| 171714861 (Comments: 1) | Black Tusk (Discussed changesets: 3) | Hi, you added a 'road number' tag here - shouldn't that be 'ref'? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391144697 commented 2025-09-14 10:14:14 UTC by mueschel ♦6,659 |
| 171892837 (Comments: 2) | Karen Anne Hinchliffe (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, I'm not sure how to do that? I saw an option to delete and used that. I'll have another go although I'm surprised that someone would add it again? Thank you for your advice. commented 2025-09-14 09:38:33 UTC by Karen Anne Hinchliffe ♦1 |
| 171871847 (Comments: 2) | Paul Berry (Discussed changesets: 51) | No problem at all. commented 2025-09-14 08:53:24 UTC by Paul Berry ♦126 |
| 171887991 (Comments: 1) | CH'97 (Discussed changesets: 1) | (Review requested) Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for resolving the note and updating the map. The only suggestion I would make is that you replace the current access=no tag (no access for any transport mode) with foot=private and ... commented 2025-09-14 08:50:29 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 171893479 (Comments: 1) | Graham_Johnson (Discussed changesets: 4) | (Review requested) The outline of the path looks fine, as it's from your own GPX file. However you probably don't need to add an access=no tag here. If horses and bicycles are prohibited and it's pedestrian only, you coul... commented 2025-09-14 08:21:52 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,609 |
| 171884761 (Comments: 1) | RobChafer (Discussed changesets: 7) | Hi, You inadvertently squared up the long boundary line Way: 449518772. I've reinstated it to the original position so all is well. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-14 06:41:31 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |
| 171751800 (Comments: 3) | DankJae (Discussed changesets: 11) | amended [https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171880332] commented 2025-09-13 15:09:42 UTC by DankJae ♦18 |
| 171860661 (Comments: 1) | Ted Pottage (Discussed changesets: 12) | Access visit by #SurreyCoalition staff and members commented 2025-09-13 06:58:52 UTC by Ted Pottage ♦24 |
| 171788026 (Comments: 1) | ruarimac24 (Discussed changesets: 2) | Hi, I just wanted to point out, in case you missed it, that there are several problems in this changeset as noted in the warnings above. I've removed several sections of duplicated cycleway which could have impacted on routing. I've not loo... commented 2025-09-13 06:16:57 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |
| 171799415 (Comments: 4) | DocDirk (Discussed changesets: 4) | There's no need for bicycle=no as highway=footway auto negates bicycles commented 2025-09-12 18:54:47 UTC by DaveF ♦1,579 |
| 145813242 (Comments: 4) | JamJar II (Discussed changesets: 20) | Ha - so it does (I didn't spot that). I'd just remove the "footway=sidewalk" altogether. commented 2025-09-12 15:48:14 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 171834477 (Comments: 1) | SomeoneElse (Discussed changesets: 450) | The ridiculously large bounding box is because the TPEP is drawn as one way: osm.org/way/94759467 . Actual edit was along the road at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/70947577#map=15/54.17595/-1.81546&layers=H commented 2025-09-12 14:07:36 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 171803156 (Comments: 1) | londonmatt (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, The church building is alreaddy mapped so I've added you new tags to it. OSM policy is "One feature, one OSM element", please see:- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-12 05:19:11 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |
| 171795177 (Comments: 1) | DaveEnglishTeacher (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. OSM maps ground truth, what is physically present at a place, and it must be verifiable to others who pass by. So I wonder, is there actually a language school here or is it an office in the bungalow? I can see ... commented 2025-09-12 05:02:09 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |
| 171807266 (Comments: 1) | alexswilliams (Discussed changesets: 2) | Accidentally put two changes into one changeset. The original change that has had its source/description lost is: - Add further detail to Buxton McDonalds; sourced from a survey 2025-09-11, and gpx traces from my etrex uploaded to osm. commented 2025-09-12 01:25:02 UTC by alexswilliams ♦2 |
| 171807987 (Comments: 1) | SomeoneElse (Discussed changesets: 450) | The ridiculously large bounding box is because the TPEP is drawn as one way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/94759467 . Actual edit was along the trail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3878675#map=13/54.17067/-1.78562&layers=H . commented 2025-09-12 01:22:03 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,436 |
| 166546525 (Comments: 4) | LordGarySugar (Discussed changesets: 18) | I have a very strong opinion that a clear corridor or embankment isn't grounds for a closed railway to be present in OSM, but that's a discussion for another time :) I went ahead and added building=train_station and abandoned=yes to ... commented 2025-09-12 01:16:13 UTC by LordGarySugar ♦89 |
| 171803940 (Comments: 1) | Paul Flo Williams (Discussed changesets: 3) | Thanks commented 2025-09-11 22:07:06 UTC by UtterClutter ♦28 |
| 171803044 (Comments: 3) | Paul Flo Williams (Discussed changesets: 3) | You can also see UPRNs for buildings that no longer exist, so you have to be careful to avoid these. For example, in Peacehaven, plenty of single houses on a plot have been demolished and two put in its place. The UPRN tool may well show 3 UPRNs in t... commented 2025-09-11 21:38:43 UTC by Paul Flo Williams ♦2 |
| 1 (Comments: 53) | Steve (Discussed changesets: 4) | suppp commented 2025-09-11 20:00:28 UTC by notmyproblem1 ♦78 |
| 153581430 (Comments: 3) | Paul Berry (Discussed changesets: 51) | Great, thanks commented 2025-09-11 19:05:49 UTC by eteb3 ♦123 |
| 171457594 (Comments: 2) | Pete Owens (Discussed changesets: 105) | Resolved in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171791746 I see, thanks for that commented 2025-09-11 17:20:47 UTC by gurglypipe ♦920 |
| 171536827 (Comments: 1) | AED123 (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi there AED123, In this changeset and two others just before it, you appear to have added three different AEDs all within a few metres of each other: * https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13123190301 * https://www.openstreetmap.org/n... commented 2025-09-11 15:10:52 UTC by Robert Whittaker ♦285 |
| 168416999 (Comments: 1) | Hansiepanzie (Discussed changesets: 3) | I think you might have broken this track (that was): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93572903/history commented 2025-09-11 14:27:54 UTC by EdLoach ♦172 |
| 171775256 (Comments: 3) | mueschel (Discussed changesets: 872) | I'm familiar with JOSM, but less so with Level0. I have used it for one of my favourite changesets - The move of a statue from Euston Station to up near Middlesborough. With Level0 I could just punch in the ICBM coordinates. commented 2025-09-11 13:54:26 UTC by spiregrain ♦207 |
| 171780268 (Comments: 1) | ThePigeonCompany15 (Discussed changesets: 1) | What on earth is this changeset comment all about? commented 2025-09-11 12:22:24 UTC by GinaroZ ♦1,283 |
| 171755352 (Comments: 4) | 小智智 (Discussed changesets: 68) | I also did the same to some other stations, such as Tottenham Court Road, a while ago. Those I left separate are those where there is a clear boundary on the ground between areas of responsibility, where the parts can be operated separately, ... commented 2025-09-11 10:58:42 UTC by 小智智 ♦54 |
| 171771732 (Comments: 1) | Troy Asset Management (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The business doesn't occupy the whole building, so I've reverted the building tags. I added the tag office=financial to your POI. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-11 09:58:07 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |
| 171757952 (Comments: 1) | jhmapo (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Good start to your mapping, that's actually two houses, I've amended. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-11 04:57:13 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,918 |