swinetown have been discussed with 11 replies of this contributorswinetown have been discussed with 11 replies of this contributor| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 171270910 by swinetown @ 2025-08-31 14:04 | 1 | 2025-08-31 14:05 | swinetown | Open to pedestrians that is, not traffic yet |
| 169530913 by swinetown @ 2025-07-26 22:36 | 1 | 2025-07-26 22:48 | swinetown | ...and removed some generic terraces too, so they can be mapped individually |
| 161582194 by swinetown @ 2025-01-20 23:54 | 1 | 2025-01-21 15:24 | swinetown | *believe, rather |
| 160654407 by swinetown @ 2024-12-26 21:34 | 1 | 2024-12-28 06:54 | BCNorwich ♦5,007 | Hello, You've been moving boundary lines and leaving a lot of untagged nodes. I've corrected some of these. Could you please check your work to correct any more inadvertent anomalies?Regards Bernard. |
| 149530873 by swinetown @ 2024-04-03 15:23 | 1 | 2024-10-21 16:01 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,738 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11783380219/history has shop = warehouse that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)shop=warehouse ? Is it place renting small space for people to store their stuff? If yes then it is shop=storage_rental - or is it some other kind of place?... |
| 2 | 2024-11-29 07:37 | swinetown | Hi, sorry for the late response but it looks like a general workplace equipment supplier. There's probably better tagging for it as I wasn't quite sure, I tagged it as that on a whim while adding a few businesses in this area. | |
| 3 | 2024-12-06 10:16 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,738 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtrade ?Maybe with some subtag? | |
| 138514004 by swinetown @ 2023-07-14 15:55 | 1 | 2024-08-09 09:41 | 0235 ♦35 | Hello, as you have put a lot of effort into creating this changeset, what are your thoughts on modifying / removing the proposed layout for Stonehenge tunnel after the recent news they have cancelled the project: https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/stonehenge-tunnel-cancelledOr Is i... |
| 2 | 2024-11-29 07:57 | swinetown | Hi, sorry for the late response. I wouldn't mind removing it for the time being as it's no longer actively proposed, on the off-chance the scheme does get rejuvenated it could just be added back I guess.Based off a quick Google search, it does seem there's a renewed push to get ju... | |
| 159148781 by swinetown @ 2024-11-14 22:27 | 1 | 2024-11-20 01:13 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,137 | https://panattoniparkswindon.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/19316_F0174-B-Revised-Masterplan1.pdf |
| 156492924 by swinetown @ 2024-09-11 16:37 | 1 | 2024-09-11 16:41 | swinetown | And changed B4069 to construction, since repair works have started now |
| 152391895 by swinetown @ 2024-06-07 20:14 | 1 | 2024-06-10 12:48 | SomeoneElse ♦13,566 | Hello,Should the gap in http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=899548 really exist, or should that be extended down the cycleway?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-06-12 00:37 | swinetown | The latter (I'm awful at checking relation gaps), thanks for flagging | |
| 3 | 2024-06-13 09:27 | SomeoneElse2 ♦480 | Thanks! | |
| 150696231 by swinetown @ 2024-04-30 08:53 | 1 | 2024-05-01 10:30 | SomeoneElse ♦13,566 | Thanks! |
| 150576213 by swinetown @ 2024-04-27 11:52 | 1 | 2024-04-28 13:22 | SomeoneElse ♦13,566 | Hello,Just wondered if you knew what route the Ridgeway Trail took across https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3459390#map=18/51.55850/-1.38390 - there look to be about 3 possible routes!Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2024-04-30 08:50 | swinetown | I'm not sure unfortunately as I haven't surveyed it on-ground, I don't know if there's one official route signposted through the criss-cross of tracks. Oxfordshire PRoW data https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/ seems to indicate the central track, that's probably the best shot we... | |
| 150411737 by swinetown @ 2024-04-23 19:09 | 1 | 2024-04-24 11:16 | MorahT ♦26 | Why are you removing the "foot=designated" tags from designated public footpaths?Removing these tags means the PRoW will now show as incomplete in https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/ and someone will have to go back in and retag them again.See the below links:https://wiki.openstreetm... |
| 2 | 2024-04-24 11:17 | MorahT ♦26 | Also why was the dirt footpath along the south and west side on Neigh Bridge deleted? This needs to be reverted back. | |
| 3 | 2024-04-25 11:08 | swinetown | Hi there. The Neigh Bridge footpath removal was an error as I was rejigging a lot of path geometry around the park. I've re-added it.I'm aware of the access provisions wiki page but I've always followed the advice that excess tags already implied by default shouldn't be a... | |
| 4 | 2024-04-25 12:20 | MorahT ♦26 | While Rob's OSM Stuff is technically third-party, it's the best tool we have to try to get the UK Public Rights of Way mapped and correctly tagged, and to find missing ones. If tags are removed, we will be going backwards.The wiki demonstrates adding "foot=designated" to all... | |
| 5 | 2024-04-25 17:50 | swinetown | Alright, looks like that was my bad then, that does explain why some of the PRoWs I was mapping weren't showing up on Rob's OSM Stuff. I agree it's probably the best PRoW tracking tool around at the moment.I'll try and do a mass-edit at some point soon to add the missing tags... | |
| 150244178 by swinetown @ 2024-04-20 00:06 | 1 | 2024-04-20 00:15 | swinetown | ...plus a few edits on the Rushey Platt ind est which I forgot to save before |
| 150197257 by swinetown @ 2024-04-18 23:08 | 1 | 2024-04-19 10:10 | MorahT ♦26 | The footpath at location 51.660259, -1.926600 into Cotswold Hoburne was footbridge over the stream. Is this is now a tunnel? |
| 146791824 by swinetown @ 2024-01-28 19:05 | 1 | 2024-03-25 20:40 | marczoutendijk ♦2,828 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1243784235/historyHi,I fixed some weird tagging of yours:building=yesarea=yes |
| 2 | 2024-04-03 18:01 | swinetown | thanks, probably got messed up while I was copy+pasting a load of building tags | |
| 146380849 by swinetown @ 2024-01-17 20:48 | 1 | 2024-01-18 17:52 | Richard ♦223 | Hi! I think you accidentally broke the continuity of the NCN 403 cycle route relation in this edit. I've repaired it but you might want to keep an eye out for route relations in future when merging ways.cheersRichard |
| 145790134 by swinetown @ 2024-01-02 09:34 | 1 | 2024-01-02 09:36 | swinetown | *of a, turns out I can't spell |
| 145314507 by swinetown @ 2023-12-20 03:52 | 1 | 2023-12-20 03:54 | swinetown | Messed up changeset comment (autofill); this was mostly buildings, fences and some landuse. |
| 135912421 by swinetown @ 2023-05-09 21:25 | 1 | 2023-07-18 08:33 | letsridebikes ♦70 | Please try to leave a more detailed changeset comment; it's very unclear what your intent was |
| 2 | 2023-12-14 22:09 | swinetown | Hi, I know this was quite a few months ago but apologies for the poor editing quality, I can't exactly remember what I was doing that day but I think I was just improving some alignments.Seems I forgot to fix the relations and leave a half decent changeset comment. | |
| 143120420 by swinetown @ 2023-10-25 15:00 | 1 | 2023-10-25 15:15 | trigpoint ♦2,503 | Hi, what is the source of this edit? And of course it probably wont happen given very strong local opposition.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2023-10-26 15:51 | trigpoint ♦2,503 | No response. Proposals are un-verifiable and do not belong in OSM. Reverted. | |
| 3 | 2023-10-26 17:27 | swinetown | Evening Phil, apologies for the delayed response.There are numerous uncopyrighted sources available all showing the same route."Proposals are un-verifiable and do not belong in OSM." .... In that case, surely the proposed tag as a whole shouldn't be recognised? Lots of other p... | |
| 4 | 2023-10-29 12:12 | trigpoint ♦2,503 | > There are numerous uncopyrighted sources available all showing the same route.I have not found one that has your level of detail, You haven't said which you used?> "Proposals are un-verifiable and do not belong in OSM." .... In that case, surely the proposed tag as a who... | |
| 140148995 by swinetown @ 2023-08-20 19:34 | 1 | 2023-08-21 10:02 | DaveF ♦1,590 | Hi Please don't add route names to ways. ways may have multiple named routes on them.The whole point of route relations was to allow multiple named routes to be attached to ways. |
| 2 | 2023-10-03 00:22 | swinetown | Hi DaveFApologies about this; I read incorrect information on a forum, my mistake. | |
| 3 | 2023-10-03 09:45 | DaveF ♦1,590 | HiIt would be useful if you could correct that misinformation on the forum to prevent it happening to others. | |
| 141574250 by swinetown @ 2023-09-21 19:13 | 1 | 2023-09-22 01:10 | MorahT ♦26 | Although the arrows face the right way after the change, it's still not routing correctly. See the below route for example:https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=51.64070%2C-1.86439%3B51.64070%2C-1.86469 |
| 2 | 2023-10-03 00:21 | swinetown | It routes correctly now, routing etc usually takes a little while to update | |
| 135982119 by swinetown @ 2023-05-11 15:07 | 1 | 2023-07-18 08:02 | letsridebikes ♦70 | Hi, when you combined ways on the Cainscross Roundabout, you broke the relations that use only a segment of the roundabout (for example bus routes, the Walk Around Stroud Way), and also the sidewalk tagging which changes around the different sides. Please be careful with combining ways in future whe... |
| 2 | 2023-07-22 11:33 | letsridebikes ♦70 | I've just found another roundabout where you broke all the relations by combining them, so I'm going to go ahead and revert this changeset now. Please don't do it again. | |
| 3 | 2023-07-22 11:48 | letsridebikes ♦70 | Actually, my mistake, I found it wasn't your fault after all. And the Stroud Brewery Bridge (at Wallbridge) double-mini roundabout is well mapped by you without affecting relations. Well done. Just be careful with the 'combine' tool! |