| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 149920422 by mot_tom @ 2024-04-12 16:58 | 1 | 2024-04-12 17:04 | gurglypipe ♦874 | For anyone reading this in future, this changeset is in response to discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149881838 |
| 149881838 by mot_tom @ 2024-04-11 20:45 | 1 | 2024-04-11 20:59 | gurglypipe ♦874 | Hiya, why change https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4860056876 from natural=fell to place=locality? natural=fell is a more specific tagging for it. |
| 2 | 2024-04-11 21:20 | mot_tom | Hi, I saw Scales Fell to the east is tagged as a locality, and Blease Fell to the west is tagged as a natural peak. I didn't think tagging Hall's Fell (and Gategill Fell and Doddick Fell) as peaks was appropriate as at all 3 nodes, the land slopes upwards towards Blencathra. So I thought c... | |
| 3 | 2024-04-11 21:21 | mot_tom | Also, the ID editor (which I know isn't perfect!) suggested that natural=fell should be a polygon not a node. | |
| 4 | 2024-04-12 09:56 | gurglypipe ♦874 | Yeah I think natural=fell would be appropriate for all of them. That’s what they’re named after all! I think this is one of the cases where ID is wrong in its suggestions — the wiki says that natural=fell is OK to use on nodes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dfell... | |
| 5 | 2024-04-12 16:57 | mot_tom | Fair enough, I'll change these nodes back to natural=fell. Thanks for the advice. | |
| 6 | 2024-04-12 17:04 | gurglypipe ♦874 | Super, thanks a lot :)For anyone reading this in future, the renames were done as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149920422 | |
| 111555148 by mot_tom @ 2021-09-22 17:43 | 1 | 2022-10-14 09:10 | DuntonLees ♦1 | Could the bandstand have a text label added? |
| 124277956 by mot_tom @ 2022-07-30 18:04 | 1 | 2022-08-01 18:33 | SomeoneElse ♦13,398 | Hello,Thanks for tidying this up.Just wondered if the bits to the west (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17883#map=17/53.83569/-1.77262 - on Briggate and on the Otley Road) are still part of this route?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2022-08-01 18:43 | mot_tom | Hi Andy, thanks for pointing this out, I've removed these isolated sections in this changeset, can't believe I forgot to check the old route fully! Thanks, mot_tom | |
| 122840511 by mot_tom @ 2022-06-25 15:07 | 1 | 2022-06-26 16:29 | DaveF ♦1,567 | HiWhat's this:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1073348157 |
| 2 | 2022-06-26 16:47 | mot_tom | Hi DaveF,This way is meant to show how the railway (including the current station, the disused parts to the east, and the Metrolink line/High Level Road) are elevated above the surrounding area. If you think this should be shown differently on the map, I'd be happy to edit this (eg separate s... | |
| 3 | 2022-06-27 03:00 | DaveF ♦1,567 | A bridge tag is for objects that span over other objects.This appears to be more a raised area,of solid ground.I would tag using landuse=railway (is all of the polygon used/owned by a railway company?)I would add level=1 to any items within the polygon and layer=X to those that are passing o... | |
| 4 | 2022-06-27 10:20 | mot_tom | Hi, that makes sense, I'll make those edits later this week when I've got some free time. Thanks for the advice. | |
| 57912073 by mot_tom @ 2018-04-08 12:32 | 1 | 2018-04-13 15:54 | chillly ♦819 | Did you try to contact the previous editor? |
| 2 | 2018-04-13 16:00 | mot_tom | Admitedly not, I'll do that now | |
| 3 | 2020-10-09 17:11 | tomhukins ♦217 | What was the outcome of the conversation? I notice it was added back a month after you removed it in changeset 59091647 but it seems like it doesn't belong here to me. I left it as is in changeset 92248442 in case there's a good reason for it. | |
| 4 | 2020-10-10 17:27 | mot_tom | Hi tomhukins, I didn't receive a response from the original editor. Seeing as I don't know the area, I'd err on the side of caution, but equally if you saw no evidence of the path on your recent visit, maybe it should be removed. I don't know! Sorry I can't be more helpful.\... | |
| 5 | 2020-10-13 19:24 | tomhukins ♦217 | Hi, mot_tom. Thanks for letting me know. Cederby has done a more thorough analysis of the situation on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/59091647 | |
| 87472674 by mot_tom @ 2020-07-02 22:35 | 1 | 2020-07-03 16:11 | JezCrow ♦150 | Hi mot_tom,Just wondering why you've deleted a residential street in Stillington: way 720142240? Both Maxar and Esri World imagery clearly show houses being constructed here.Happy mapping,Jez |
| 2 | 2020-07-03 19:49 | mot_tom | Hi JezCrow, Woops, I changed this street to a track, but seeing as this was an incorrect edit based on older impagery, I've rectified this in this changeset [https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87516290]. Thanks for pointing this out to me, and happy mapping to you too!mot_tom | |
| 3 | 2020-07-03 21:52 | JezCrow ♦150 | Thank you for your quick response. Looks good! | |
| 81019789 by mot_tom @ 2020-02-14 17:20 | 1 | 2020-02-15 12:34 | CamelCaseNick ♦174 | Hey,what do you mean with your change of wikidata for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/275295901?CamelCaseNick |
| 2 | 2020-02-15 16:59 | mot_tom | Hi CamelCaseNickWoops, that was a mistake, I'll change that back ASAP, apologies! Thanks for spottingmot_tom | |
| 63393932 by mot_tom @ 2018-10-10 20:16 | 1 | 2018-10-15 08:28 | Benny Goodman ♦19 | Why are you creating multipolygons like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7964956 which could be easily done as multiple ways? |
| 2 | 2018-10-15 20:29 | mot_tom | Hi Benny Goodman. I've used multipolygons as I find them easier to manipulate in iD editor, but now that I think about it, that's not a reasonable explanation! I'll edit these ways shortly. Thanks, mot_tom | |
| 51463522 by mot_tom @ 2017-08-26 16:59 | 1 | 2017-09-02 11:49 | DaveF ♦1,567 | Hi mot_tomIn OSM it's best not to stitch polygon areas to the centreline of road ways, as you've done with residential areas. Imagine it was a field & a gate was added. That gate would also be a node on the road, effectively blocking it. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/518873970... |
| 2 | 2017-09-04 14:29 | mot_tom | Hi DaveFThanks for the tips, I'll bear them in mind in future edits, apologies for the mistakes made here | |
| 51203607 by mot_tom @ 2017-08-17 12:20 | 1 | 2017-08-23 13:28 | GerdP ♦2,751 | Hi!please review typo highway=footpathon two ways:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194442997https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43520756 |
| 2 | 2017-08-23 20:03 | mot_tom | D'oh! Thanks for that, I've edited them both to highway=footway as they should be | |
| 50623679 by mot_tom @ 2017-07-27 15:55 | 1 | 2017-07-27 23:14 | DaveF ♦1,567 | There is no pedestrian section. Motorists can driver right upto the bollards |
| 2 | 2017-07-28 09:19 | mot_tom | I agree and I only changed this as it shows more clearly on the map that it is a no through road (the bollard symbol is very small and hard to see). However, by all means change it back to how it was if that is preferable | |
| 3 | 2017-07-28 10:32 | DaveF ♦1,567 | ...Or you could rectify your erroneous edits yourself.You've mapped for the renderer which is actively discouraged. OSM is a database from which many renderings are derived. Just because certain features a hard to see in one doesn't mean they're not prominent in another. | |
| 4 | 2017-07-28 10:40 | mot_tom | Apologies, I'm fairly new to this so I'm still learning as I go along, but mapping for the renderer does make sense, and with hindsight, there wasn't really much need to change the area. I'll change it back immediately (I wasn't trying to be snarky either, sorry if I came ac... | |
| 5 | 2017-07-28 11:14 | DaveF ♦1,567 | No worries. As long as the quality of the database is maintained. | |
| 50629943 by mot_tom @ 2017-07-27 19:44 | 1 | 2017-07-27 22:03 | DaveF ♦1,567 | Anybody know if these rail tracks have be removed completely? |
| 2 | 2017-07-28 09:14 | mot_tom | According to this website, only the sleepers remain - https://www.28dayslater.co.uk/flax-bourton-underground-fuel-depot-somerset-june-2015.t97487The whole site is abandoned, but I don't know how to tag that onto the industrial area (other than the deprecated disused=yes tag) | |
| 49206152 by mot_tom @ 2017-06-02 19:56 | 1 | 2017-06-03 13:33 | DaveF ♦1,567 | FYI area tag isn't required for man_made=bridge |