OSM changeset discussions of ramthelinefeed

Changeset	#	Tmstmp UTC	Contributor	Comment
167858570 by ramthelinefeed @ 2025-06-20 08:34	1	2025-06-23 03:41	VictorIE ♦911	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/706472754/history access=private on a walking route? access=private
	2	2025-06-23 08:32	ramthelinefeed	that lane is a 'public right of way' for pedestrians, I guess that means its 'private' for motor vehicles - let me check...
167228912 by ramthelinefeed @ 2025-06-05 15:35	1	2025-06-06 15:37	user_5359 ♦19,400	Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1392376140. What is the mean of the tag t = y ?
	2	2025-06-06 15:57	ramthelinefeed	Ah, well spotted, thank you :) This was an auto-complete fail - it should have been 'tactile_paving=yes' I have fixed it now.
149765137 by ramthelinefeed @ 2024-04-09 08:39	1	2025-04-11 15:53	VictorIE ♦911	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11681404055/ noexit=yes seems like the wrong tag here. Is it a blocked-up entrance?
	2	2025-04-11 15:59	ramthelinefeed	Yes I believe it is blocked - for some reason there is a paved path with a solid 6 foot high wire mesh fence across it! You can see it on Google Maps Street View.
	3	2025-04-11 17:36	VictorIE ♦911	I've disconnected the 'path' from the road to stop having noexit=yes or a highway=* (Osmose was whining about it).
157466101 by ramthelinefeed @ 2024-10-04 15:14	1	2024-12-17 15:57	VictorIE ♦911	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12222536541 Is this "Newry Post Office"?
156262715 by ramthelinefeed @ 2024-09-06 08:36	1	2024-09-06 08:42	ramthelinefeed	Having said that - looking on Google Maps (ahem), which uses Translink's Open Data (phew ;) it does look like Translink have made the effort to map routes to individual stands. However this is not the way they've chosen to do it in the Translink App. And I notice te data is already a mes...
154397408 by ramthelinefeed @ 2024-07-25 14:29	1	2024-07-26 12:27	VictorIE ♦911	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1303711965 I've deleted a few duplicates - there might have been a glitch or loss of connectivity as you saved. From: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Demergency_access "A driveway to a fire station or emergency ward should ...
134739099 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-04-10 16:16	1	2024-06-12 07:41	borovac ♦103	Hi ramthelinefeed, I noticed that you changed the classification of the road from service to track. As a result, this house is now without access to the main road (way/1146085769). Could you please reevaluate whether this road should indeed be classified as a track, or if its connection warrants ...
150939363 by ramthelinefeed @ 2024-05-05 21:10	1	2024-05-06 20:11	Hufkratzer ♦755	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1280022172 looks like a riding arena (similar to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1170874739), but you habe tagged it as a riding centre (leisure=horse_riding), compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aleisure%3Dhorse_riding See also previous discu...
149099242 by ramthelinefeed @ 2024-03-24 17:23	1	2024-03-25 21:14	Hufkratzer ♦755	Hi, What is the difference between https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1265860681 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1170874739 ? Isn't https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1265860681 also a riding arena like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1170874739 ? Compare old discussion https://www.opens...
110424588 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-08-29 19:11	1	2024-03-14 12:02	samcircuit ♦2	I believe the LTN is no longer in effect and this can be reverted
142751797 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-10-18 09:01	1	2023-11-02 11:47	mueschel ♦6,572	Hi, could you check the name tags here? Something went wrong... https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8201016895
	2	2023-11-02 11:55	ramthelinefeed	thanks, well spotted :) Fixed it.
142043999 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-10-02 15:04	1	2023-10-02 15:06	Aleksandar Matejevic ♦199	Hi ramthelinefeed, can you please fix https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16400468 it is a broken boundary now
	2	2023-10-02 15:37	ramthelinefeed	I haven't finished editing it yet! :-) It takes several hours to manually create a boundary that long in the ID editor! :(
	3	2023-10-02 19:51	Aleksandar Matejevic ♦199	Can I help you, I am using JOSM and it is way easier to create big relations. What is the source?
	4	2023-10-02 19:56	ramthelinefeed	If you are using JOSM then you probably could do this very quickly, yes (for several years I keep meaning to try that tool, haven't yet...) The Lieutenancy Area of County Londonderry outer boundary is identical to the boundary of County Londonderry https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19595...
	5	2023-10-03 13:00	Aleksandar Matejevic ♦199	Can you check if everything is done properly?
	6	2023-10-03 13:42	ramthelinefeed	It's perfect! Thank you very much :) That would have taken me all week in the iD editor! :)
142005177 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-10-01 21:03	1	2023-10-02 18:56	Colin Smale ♦319	These counties are no longer used for administrative purposes and you should not be retagging them to boundary=administrative! Please revert them to boundary=historic.
	2	2023-10-02 19:09	ramthelinefeed	Well, I'm not sure I agree. Those counties are still used for Lord Lieutenancy areas, which do have an (albeit rather small) administrative purpose. I wondered whether it might be wiser to duplicate the relations for Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh & Tyrone, and have one as the 'histor...
	3	2023-10-02 19:21	Colin Smale ♦319	What is their (small) administrative function? Are they different to the Lieutenancy areas in GB, which are basically the "historic counties" and tagged as such? Not every boundary defined in law is an administrative boundary. In OSM there is usually a check that it has some kind of democr...
	4	2023-10-02 19:32	Colin Smale ♦319	Cancel that last sentence - I see that the NI councils have been set to admin_level=7, undocumented in the wiki. So much for consistency!
	5	2023-10-02 19:45	ramthelinefeed	Yes we have been discussing the choice of admin-level for NI supercouncils here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/northern-ireland-super-council-boundaries/99280 The administrative powers of local governement in NI is not 'consistent' with that in GB - the demarcation between West...
	6	2023-10-02 19:47	ramthelinefeed	I take your point about consistency of tagging between NI lieutenancy areas & GB ones. Lieutenancy areas do not have 'some kind of democratic consititution', they instead have a lord lieutenant appointed by the monarch :) The main things they do are administer the honours system,...
136445976 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-05-23 08:54	1	2023-10-02 17:18	SK53 ♦864	Please don't create relations like the super_relation here. It's completely unnecessary as it's easy to find all admin boundaries within Northern Ireland, and also not how we do things: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories. Thanks, Jerry aka SK53
	2	2023-10-02 19:15	ramthelinefeed	Ah, I see. Sorry. I'd never read that article before. But I had over the years seem numerous OSM relations which were categories. So I had thought they were useful common practice!
139959224 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-08-16 11:25	1	2023-08-27 10:51	VictorIE ♦911	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/769423428 This is awkward as a highway=busway, as there are farm access tracks off it. Thoughts?
	2	2023-08-27 11:04	ramthelinefeed	You're not wrong, I thought that too - but nevertheless that appears to be the situation on the ground. Technically the there's no legal way for the farmer to drive his tractor into the field. :)
	3	2023-08-27 11:09	ramthelinefeed	I've adjusted the geometry to make it more technically legal (even though I doubt it will make no difference to where the farmer positions their tractor) :)
	4	2023-08-27 12:16	VictorIE ♦911	Yes, I suppose it is about representing things, not being absolutely precise. Interesting that busways don't show in the standard view.
	5	2023-08-27 13:16	ramthelinefeed	Yeah I noticed that too! But people always telling me 'don't tag for the renderer' so I just put up with it!
136022009 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-05-12 14:39	1	2023-08-02 13:57	VictorIE ♦911	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1172117597/history In light of this discussion: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/access-no-foot-designated-on-highway-footway-should-it-be-reverted/101907 I'm wondering is this is over-tagged with: access=no foot=designated highway=footway ...
	2	2023-08-02 14:36	ramthelinefeed	Possibly! Yeah the tags that are there are not really ones that I explicitly chose and typed in, it what gets autogenerated by the iD editor when I selected 'All?' = No and 'Foot?' = designated from the dropdowns in the GUI. To me that's logical based on the drop-downs pre...
	3	2023-08-02 14:55	VictorIE ♦911	Generally, the consensus seems to be the fewer tags the better, especially when it comes to access permissions. For example, oneway=no generally isn't used, unless it is the likes of a single-carriageway motorway (where you would normally expect it to be oneway). Importantly, in the OSM ...
	4	2023-08-02 14:58	ramthelinefeed	This all sounds reasonable, although I think the culprit here the iD GUI design. I have commented to that effect on the thread you linked to.
	5	2023-08-02 15:47	VictorIE ♦911	Yes, I thought the same earlier.
137686130 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-06-23 12:03	1	2023-06-23 21:32	Hufkratzer ♦755	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1184450249 looks like a riding arena (similar to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1170874739), but you habe tagged it as a riding centre (leisure=horse_riding), compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aleisure%3Dhorse_riding
	2	2023-06-24 15:55	ramthelinefeed	Thanks yes, I wasn't sure how to tag that - I have now done it as a sports pitch for horse riding. Cheers!
136600204 by ramthelinefeed @ 2023-05-26 18:19	1	2023-06-15 18:37	Ropino ♦390	Hi, highway=CD/RW/8044 ? "CD/RW/8044" -> could be a kind of ref ? Please check it. Thx in advance.
	2	2023-06-15 21:02	ramthelinefeed	yes, the tag should be 'highway_authority_ref=CD/RW/8044' Looks like the auto-complete went wrong in the editor. Can you see which way is the mistagged one? I couldn't find it when I looked there...
	3	2023-06-16 04:54	Ropino ♦390	Hi, it's in the relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15907231
	4	2023-06-16 08:18	ramthelinefeed	got it! :)
129966231 by ramthelinefeed @ 2022-12-11 15:25	1	2023-03-16 18:05	robert ♦234	The problem with doing separate ways for sidewalks is it screws up routing: https://gist.github.com/risicle/c523638c7768b1c3292e8c7b07aa7563
	2	2023-03-16 18:44	ramthelinefeed	Sir, I think you'll find the problem is that the routing algorithm is an idiot :) Perhaps it could be trained on Green Cross Code videos from the 1970s?
	3	2023-04-02 17:53	robert ♦234	There is no information you have conveyed to the OSM data model that could let it know that it's possible to traverse from that footway to Ashmole Street directly. Unless you're about to rewrite the last 20 years of routing technology for us around vague proximity of ways to each other den...
	4	2023-04-02 18:00	ramthelinefeed	It's a fairly basic tenet of OSM that we don't 'tag for the renderer'. Neither do we map for the router. Any human knows that if they are stood on a pavement alongside a road, they can cross to get to the other side (taking into account the business of the road and the proximity...
	5	2023-04-05 17:17	robert ♦234	That's all of them that are exceedingly dump then. Using fuzzy heuristics to determine routability between ways will not work as well as you appear to think it will - making it able to "jump" between apparently unrelated ways would require mappers to go back through the whole of OS...
	6	2023-04-05 17:55	ramthelinefeed	A way tagged as a 'pavement' (or 'sidewalk') running alongside a way tagged as a 'highway' is obviously not 'entirely unrelated'. I think you're being silly.
122258729 by ramthelinefeed @ 2022-06-11 17:38	1	2022-06-23 10:08	mueschel ♦6,572	Hi, is "text:arrow = white" a mistake? Shouldn't is be 'colour:arrow'?
	2	2022-06-23 10:25	ramthelinefeed	yes I think you're right, well spotted! :)
120531240 by ramthelinefeed @ 2022-05-04 08:37	1	2022-05-05 11:58	wireguy ♦548	Ram, can you look at the Bixton Rush Common ward relation (relation 14103909)? It's broken (not a complete ring). Looks like way 1040559077 should be used instead of Brixton Hill (way 4060864).
	2	2022-05-05 12:50	ramthelinefeed	Cheers - yes I just set that one up from scratch yesterday, haven't had a chance to properly check it yet. It's more than likely there was at least one mistake in there.... will check it soon
	3	2022-05-06 19:13	ramthelinefeed	I think I fixed it? Does it look OK to you know.
	4	2022-05-06 19:40	wireguy ♦548	Yes, looks good. Thanks for correcting.
	5	2022-05-06 22:48	ramthelinefeed	Hooray! That's 3 new Lambeth ward boundaries done, now just another 21 to go! :)
116436357 by ramthelinefeed @ 2022-01-21 15:26	1	2022-04-05 12:26	wireguy ♦548	Ram, way 232228511 way 1023342244 both seem to both be in Herne Hill relation causing the boundary to not be closed. I think you can remove the way 232228511 (fence) .
	2	2022-04-05 13:47	ramthelinefeed	Ah! Yes - thanks that had been baffling me - can you fix it? (All these boundaries change in May 5th 2022 by the way - complete new set of wards! I've mapped two of them so far... lol)
	3	2022-04-05 13:56	wireguy ♦548	corrected.
	4	2022-04-05 15:42	ramthelinefeed	well played, sir! :)
94371217 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-11-18 14:30	1	2022-03-26 15:51	DaveF ♦1,564	Hi Is this really a service road with access to the main road? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/854079450/history
	2	2022-03-26 16:21	ramthelinefeed	Service road, driveway, tradesman's entrance, something like that... :)
	3	2022-03-26 22:18	DaveF ♦1,564	It doesn't look like it's a vehicle entrance/exit. https://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.44778/-0.10134/bing
	4	2022-03-26 22:38	ramthelinefeed	The kerbing on Rosendale Road is for a vehicle exit but if you look on Google Streetview you'll see it currently is fitted with fencing that restricts the width of the exit, so it's more suitable for bikes, delivery scooters etc at the moment. I'll double check it next time I walk pas...
118784537 by ramthelinefeed @ 2022-03-22 15:53	1	2022-03-22 16:04	Colin Smale ♦319	boundary ways that are only for boundary=political relations should not be tagged as boundary=administrative.... better to set them to boundary=political
	2	2022-03-22 16:08	ramthelinefeed	Oh I see. Sorry. I seem to have been enticed by the tag suggestions of the ID editor (and not for the first time...) Can I maybe just keep the 'way' itself as a 'line'? As the ward boundary itself is done using a relation.
	3	2022-03-22 17:06	Colin Smale ♦319	Yes, it would not be incorrect to remove the tag from the way completely. It is not my personal preference, as it is sometimes difficult to distinguish one line from another (in various editors) without this kind of "hint" though. There appears to be a kind of undocumented hierarchy, with ...
	4	2022-03-22 17:13	ramthelinefeed	OK :) Well I have removed the 'boundary=' tag from the line/way, and left the line tagged with the Brixton North ward relation. Thanks for flagging!
104081706 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-05-03 22:14	1	2022-02-07 16:12	Mauls ♦28	Please avoid adding tiny railway 'tunnels' under pavements that are part of road bridges over the railway.
	2	2022-02-07 17:37	ramthelinefeed	What's the best way to do it, then? I found that if you simply tell OSM that the pavement is on a 'bridge' as well, most renderers show separate bridges for both the road carriageway and the pavement, which is silly. (You can also draw an 'bridge area' polygon around the who...
	3	2022-02-07 17:46	Mauls ♦28	They do, and it does look silly (unless you are more zoomed out, when renderers tend to merge the edges). The same thing happens with dualcarriageways appearing as separate bridges (see, for example, several of the major central London bridges over the Thames). Or where multiple railway tracks appea...
	4	2022-02-07 17:51	Mauls ♦28	A compromise might be to make the pavements the same layer as the roadway bridge, but not apply the bridge tag to them. That will avoid any errors about them crossing the things below, but without creating other odd artifacts.
	5	2022-02-07 18:01	ramthelinefeed	Yeah - I will keep using the 'bridge area' thing. And I do try to set the 'layer' to preclude the whole thing happening in the first place.... I confess that most times I have added an extra mini tunnel, it was because I went to save some changes, and the editor insisted my pav...
115671274 by ramthelinefeed @ 2022-01-02 14:11	1	2022-01-08 16:25	Derick Rethans ♦156	Hi! What's the reason for adding the "Diana" ref tag to the "Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Walk" route? I don't think this is an established name
	2	2022-01-08 17:10	ramthelinefeed	Hi, Well, it was just because what is probably the best known renderer for waymarked walks, https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org, recently changed the way it was labelling things (using all initials of a name, rather than just a few). And so had started labelling is as "DPOWMW". Which I tho...
89289261 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-08-12 08:12	1	2021-06-25 10:42	GinaroZ ♦1,280	What's the reason for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24653034 being access=no?
	2	2021-06-25 11:14	ramthelinefeed	Hi, I believe the way that tag works is that the 'yes' means it is open to all types, 'no' means there are some restrictions - any exceptions to the restrictions are given an individual 'yes' for that particular mode. This one has a 'yes' for bikes and for pe...
	3	2021-06-25 16:27	GinaroZ ♦1,280	Right, but this is the only part of the towpath around here which has access=no. And with bike/foot/horse=yes, the access=no tag seems redundant since vehicles can't go on a highway=path anyway. So unless the towpath is closed, think it's best to remove it (it'll render properly on th...
	4	2021-06-25 16:32	ramthelinefeed	Sounds to me like the correct way to improve OSM here would be to apply the same tagging to the rest of the towpath sections, not changing the tagging on this one!
	5	2021-06-25 18:14	GinaroZ ♦1,280	Not sure how access=no on a path where the tag is not needed is an improvement.
	6	2021-06-25 19:48	ramthelinefeed	Well feel free to read the documentation on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation and learn about it.
100050641 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-02-26 12:27	1	2021-06-22 14:27	harvey_cm ♦1	The changeset does not connect the pavements sufficiently. Note for example that the pavements on Gleneagle Road at the junction of Fairmile Avenue do not permit crossings from one side of the road to the other. This isses is consistent across most junctions in the area. Note this is not consiste...
	2	2021-06-22 15:12	ramthelinefeed	I'm not sure what to suggest - I was adding in more detail on a cycle route, including showing pavements (some of the roads didn't have them - for instance the north side of Tooting Bec Gardens). Generally where there is a pedestrian crossing point with 'textured paving' then I m...
	3	2021-06-22 15:33	harvey_cm ♦1	Is there a need to add these pavements in this way? In general pavements aren’t added anywhere else in this way. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks) It would be better to add a sidewalk=both tag on all ways which model the roads rather than adding in new ways.
	4	2021-06-22 15:49	ramthelinefeed	I wouldn't say pavements aren't added 'anywhere else' in this way - you will often see them added where editors have really gone to town (pardon the pun) editing local detail on an area they know intimately. Some go even further and trace in the whole width of the footway, taggi...
	5	2021-06-22 16:19	Gonja ♦6	Hi Ram, the Sidewalks documentation which Harvey linked explains that there are two approaches to adding pavement information. The OSM convention is to only add pavements where they diverge from the nearby streets (such as this footpath: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24299673), otherwise it'...
	6	2021-06-22 16:50	ramthelinefeed	Now come on, there was a lot more in my changeset than just pavements! (lots of buildings, trees, traffic lights & other junction routing detail etc, and more..,). I don't think it makes any sense to revert all that because someone doesn't like the pavements. I'm still not reall...
	7	2021-06-22 16:53	ramthelinefeed	If you look at this pavement, for instance https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/895923208 - it is waymarked as being part of the Capital Ring. Before I drew in the pavement, the road itself had to be tagged as being part of the Capital Ring. This looked ugly and also obscured useful info such as how th...
	8	2021-06-22 18:18	Gonja ♦6	Apologies, I didn't study the whole changeset, I strictly meant the footpath/pavement additions which are part of the changeset. Adding effectively random pavements, such as can now be seen everywhere along the Capital Ring relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6118565) looks far...
	9	2021-06-22 18:22	ramthelinefeed	Well as I said, I don't think the sidewalk tag works adequately at complex junctions. Again, is your concern here about some machine-reading use case?
106254154 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-06-12 13:47	1	2021-06-12 14:10	Colin Smale ♦319	Hi! Electoral wards should not be tagged as boundary=administrative but boundary=political. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dpolitical
	2	2021-06-12 14:11	Colin Smale ♦319	An example is right there in Norbury - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2234325
	3	2021-06-12 14:46	ramthelinefeed	Hi - sorry yes, I'd already spotted that before I read your message :) Have got it right now?
	4	2021-06-12 16:42	Colin Smale ♦319	Yeah, it looks good now! Thanks
105980766 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-06-07 15:10	1	2021-06-08 17:36	deepikja ♦58	Hi, I see that you have changed small part of the residential road into cyclepath with emergency access. I would like to confirm https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5021927 if this segment still remains as one way because with the cylepath at one end there is no traffic flowing on these roads.Request...
	2	2021-06-08 18:14	ramthelinefeed	Hi there - yes I think motor traffic can still only exit from Mount Nod Road onto Leigham Court Road, not enter. The single point of access to Mount Nod Road for motor vehicles is now via Mountearl Gardens?
	3	2021-06-09 06:26	deepikja ♦58	Hi, We are unaware of the ground reality but the current edit is blocking vehicular traffic to the school and other entities. We are thinking the placement of the nodal filter is little offset.I will add a note in OSM to update local mappers on the same. Please try to correct (if any) from your end...
	4	2021-06-09 08:34	ramthelinefeed	Sorry yes, looking at it again now, I had put the new 'modal filter' next to the wrong junction. I have corrected it now. Thank you very much for spotting it!
104339435 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-05-07 20:10	1	2021-05-16 01:35	xyzl ♦3	Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming you didn't mean to remove the highway tag from part of Burtons Way and replace with just a speed hump tag? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/276094236/ Have changed back but don't know where to put the speed hump on the road itself.
	2	2021-05-18 08:45	ramthelinefeed	Well spotted :) Yeah that must have been a mistake. Thanks for fixing! Looks like there are two speed bumps on that road, I added them in in their proper places now!
104411281 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-05-09 20:57	1	2021-05-12 17:12	Mike Baggaley ♦630	Hi, I know you didn't set the access, but do you know if there is there a reason why the footways into the station have access=no? Way 845089075 and adjacent. Cheers, Mike
	2	2021-05-12 18:48	ramthelinefeed	Hi, I'm guess it is probably because there has been some construction work / remodelling of the station in recent years, and some of the ways through have been closed off whilst it was ongoing. They probably need their 'access' tag revised now - I'll take a look!
	3	2021-05-12 18:53	ramthelinefeed	The 'pedestrian area' forecourt is free to access, I think, so I have cleared the tag on that. I don't think you can go through under the tracks to reach Wallis Road yet.
100901175 by ramthelinefeed @ 2021-03-12 10:38	1	2021-03-14 22:43	DaveF ♦1,564	Hi All major railway stations have been added. Please don't duplicate. For buildings use 'train_station'.
	2	2021-03-15 09:11	ramthelinefeed	Cheers - I did think there ought to be a tag like that, but nothing came up on the iD editor's auto-complete when I made my edit!
	3	2021-03-15 12:13	DaveF ♦1,564	Ah, the iD editor. Please don't assume it's the be all & end all. There are many tags not included in it. Also don't assume its validation checking is correct. For instance it flags any train station, including miniature tourists ones as 'public transport'.
94155307 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-11-15 16:43	1	2020-11-18 00:52	DaveF ♦1,564	NCN 4 is broken again https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871911457#map=19/51.48575/-0.14946
	2	2020-11-18 09:23	ramthelinefeed	Indeed it is. It's almost like they hadn't really thought this through ;)
90829861 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-09-13 19:54	1	2020-09-15 22:42	DaveF ♦1,564	Hi Could you fix up NCN4 please (please don't add the superroute) http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=1318929
	2	2020-09-15 22:45	ramthelinefeed	Sorry - the problem is that the browser editor truncates the relation names so I couldn't tell which one was the super-route. If you know which is which, please correct it.
	3	2020-09-16 11:02	DaveF ♦1,564	Hi OSM has a DIY ethic, where contributors correct their own errors. The information you require is all there.
	4	2020-09-16 11:04	ramthelinefeed	There's no need to be a dick about it.
	5	2020-09-16 11:08	DaveF ♦1,564	I was going out of my way to help you. There's no requirement for childish ad hominem insults.
	6	2020-09-16 11:11	ramthelinefeed	No you weren't, you were being a dick.
	7	2020-09-16 11:13	DaveF ♦1,564	Please fix your errors to maintain the quality of the OSM database.
	8	2020-09-16 11:15	ramthelinefeed	I already did fix it. It's not my fault the editor has bugs in its autocomplete/dropdown for relations. You could have fixed it yourself yesterday if you weren't more interested in being a dick.
	9	2020-09-16 11:37	DaveF ♦1,564	I'm glad to see you followed my instructions. The error is not in the software.
	10	2020-09-16 12:25	ramthelinefeed	Sad to see you didn't follow my advice not to be a dick. When using that "iD" editor in a web browser, and adding a relation to a 'way', there are two buggy things that not infrequently happen. One is that sometimes not all the eligible near-by relations appear in the s...
	11	2020-09-16 14:15	DaveF ♦1,564	No one in OSM is your mummy. If you need to wipe your nose, learn how to do it yourself.
	12	2020-09-16 14:19	ramthelinefeed	A shame there's no block function on here so I don't have to put up with you trolling.
90830889 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-09-13 20:43	1	2020-09-15 22:45	DaveF ♦1,564	Hi Same as previous request
	2	2020-09-15 22:46	ramthelinefeed	Same reply as for previous comment ;)
88888003 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-08-03 17:15	1	2020-08-03 18:00	MacLondon ♦215	David, the Lambeth map you're working from just uses levels to classify "bikeability". Level 1 is described as "...routes, paths and crossings plus shared space...". This doesn't mean that a way with "Level 1 bikeability" is part of an actual cycle route. C...
	2	2020-08-03 18:39	ramthelinefeed	LOL l'm not sure why there's such resistance in some quarters to tagging this as a cycle route. :) It's undoubtedly the best child/beginner-friendly circular traffic-free route in the whole of Lambeth borough! That's why Lambeth mark it out on their official cycle map (very spec...
	3	2020-08-03 19:08	MacLondon ♦215	It's just a traffic-free path though, not a circular route. The Lambeth map is a 'cycle map' (rather than an actual 'cycle route map') with most roads in the borough coloured by bikeability. The bits on the 2004 map were already mapped as the only members of this relation...
	4	2020-08-03 19:18	ramthelinefeed	Having cycled round Brockwell Park recently, I must respectfully disagree. It is most definitely a circular route round the perimeter of the park, and recommended as such by the council for novice/underconfident cyclists on their borough cycle map. I don't see what is to be gained by not taggi...
	5	2020-08-03 20:29	MacLondon ♦215	It's a path that is indeed "suitable for cyclists of all levels" as suggested by the bikeability level. Every shared use path in the country would have an identical bikeability level. That does make them cycle routes. Similarly all yellow residential road on their map are "sui...
	6	2020-08-03 20:54	MacLondon ♦215	Also, if you look at the Lambeth LIP3's Healthy Routes map (essentially future Cycleways) the only proposed route around here will be along the road outside the east edge of Brockwell Park - see https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s98795/Appendix%202%20Draft%20Local%20Implementation%20Pl...
	7	2020-08-03 21:58	ramthelinefeed	Yeah but when you say "It's a path that is indeed 'suitable for cyclists of all levels' as suggested by the bikeability level. Every shared use path in the country would have an identical bikeability level. That does make them cycle routes" ... so why have Lambeth very delib...
	8	2020-08-04 02:26	MacLondon ♦215	It could equally be said that during recreational cycling a family with kids might put off using an (apparent) cycle route! This could be the best off-road cycleway in the world, but that still doesn't make "what currently makes for a good loop round the park" an actual "netwo...
	9	2020-08-04 08:55	ramthelinefeed	Hmmm :) The nub of this difference of opinion seems to me that you are wedded to a very particular technical interpretation of the word "route". Whereas I am considering it in a more general everyday language type of meaning. I do think the latter is of more relevance to most people who&#...
84464231 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-05-01 10:13	1	2020-06-11 18:14	DaveF ♦1,564	Hi Is there a reason you added tunnel? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/220857485 'name' should not be used on bridges as they can clash with highway names: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge:name
	2	2020-06-11 18:34	ramthelinefeed	Canal bridges on the UK inland waterways network general have names (and numbers). It's important for identifying locations on the waterways, as obviously street addressing/post codes doesn't work on waterways. I can't see the tunnel on my screen here!
	3	2020-06-11 18:47	DaveF ♦1,564	Hi Version 4: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/220857485 Re: names: I'm unsure what you mean. Bridges of all types should have their name tagged using bridge:name for the reason I gave. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148028614 You've swapped the name of ...
	4	2020-06-11 21:23	ramthelinefeed	Oh well, sorry - that was the first time I'd done any canal edits. You'd better revert it.
	5	2020-06-11 21:38	DaveF ♦1,564	Well,can't you amend them to how i said as your amendments are half right?
	6	2020-06-14 13:00	ramthelinefeed	Well I don't have time right now, feel free to sort it!
	7	2020-06-14 13:12	DaveF ♦1,564	Says someone who made 20 separate changesets over the last day. Disappointing to see you're a contributor unwilling to take responsibility for his actions.
	8	2020-06-14 14:16	ramthelinefeed	Did you ever think that the reason I might not have time is precisely because I'm so busy making 20 changesets a day?
83426372 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-04-12 12:48	1	2020-04-25 23:07	DaveF ♦1,564	Hi Could yo take a look at the NCN relations. You added You've added the wrong one. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1318931. Should be 1318929
	2	2020-04-25 23:09	DaveF ♦1,564	Plus: Shouldn't it return along this path to rejoin existing route? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448227638
	3	2020-04-26 12:22	ramthelinefeed	Cheers! :) Yeah, sorry, NCN4 is one of those ones made up of multiple sub-relations, looks like I added the wrong tier of subrelation, oops.
	4	2020-04-26 12:26	ramthelinefeed	As for the designation of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448227638 (the cycle path beside Clarence Road) - it's kinda moot. But the formal designation for it on https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn is "NCN21". This also matches the signage on the ground (see https://www.googl...
	5	2020-04-26 12:27	ramthelinefeed	Basically, NCN21 is meant to start at the west side of the swing bridge over Deptford Creek, and head south (all the way to Eastbourne). Whereas NCN4 is meant to start at Cutty Sark and head west all the way to Fishguard.
79088280 by ramthelinefeed @ 2020-01-01 18:21	1	2020-01-02 15:03	MacLondon ♦215	David, http://static.walthamforest.gov.uk/sp/Documents/chapter4-calibri.pdf#page=17 does show the Olympic route (in purple) finishing at the entrance to Epping Forest on Snaresbrook Road.
	2	2020-01-02 15:23	ramthelinefeed	Ah - fair point, but in the map key, it described that purple line as 'Proposed Cycle Routes 2011 to 2014'. Would it be fair to surmise that the proposal wasn't implemented as far as Snaresbrook Road? The northernmost Epping Forest Olympic route signage I could find was actually a...
	3	2020-01-02 15:31	ramthelinefeed	You can usually tell those Olympics routes as they have pairs of blue fingerpost cycle signs with named destinations - Epping Forest and Stratford in this case - and smaller blue route confirmatory signs with just a cycle and pedestrian icon on them... I can't see any of that in evidence north...
	4	2020-01-02 15:31	ramthelinefeed	the situation on Lea Bridge Road south pavement is a bit moot, because they're currently upgrading that for C23...
66974248 by ramthelinefeed @ 2019-02-06 19:37	1	2019-12-02 19:28	Jez Nicholson ♦71	Garden Centre? At the junction of Dyke Road and Old Shoreham Road? It is an old people's home is it not?
	2	2019-12-02 19:58	ramthelinefeed	I think you're right! I don't think that was part of my changeset, unless something very odd happened!
65900715 by ramthelinefeed @ 2018-12-30 23:41	1	2019-01-05 18:32	_Madfly ♦14	Cycle lanes should be added with the cycleway=lane tag (or cycleway:left=lane etc) on the road, as they are considered to be a part of it. Can you please change how you mapped this.
	2	2019-01-05 19:15	ramthelinefeed	well, I think it renders much much accurately on clients such as 'open cycle map' and 'cycling.waymarkedtrails.org' if the lanes are shown the way I've done it, but feel free to change it if you wish!
	3	2019-01-06 16:25	ramthelinefeed	There's a discussion of the pros and cons of various ways of tagging here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_lanes Note the last line of the article 'For high level of complexity ...,consider drawing the track as its own way, parallel to the road'. I do favour...
	4	2019-01-06 16:30	ramthelinefeed	(Not to go on and on about it, but...) The other aspect is when doing logical tagging with relations. Where cycle lanes are drawn in as their own separate ways, these ways can then be tagged with logical 'route: cycle' relations, which then can be used to great effect by cycle mapping cl...
	5	2019-01-06 16:34	ramthelinefeed	See for example how the intersection of the Connswater Greenway with Grand Parade renders on https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=18!54.5883!-5.8848 Because both the pavement, the toucan crossing, the road and the cycle lanes are all drawn as seperate ways, it's possible for the client to...
	6	2019-01-06 21:04	_Madfly ♦14	Thank you for replying. Firstly, you quoted the key:cycleway wiki page ('For high level of complexity ...,consider drawing the track as its own way, parallel to the road'. ) Note that this refers to a "track", not a lane. The same wiki page says: "A cycle track is separated...
	7	2019-01-06 21:52	ramthelinefeed	Well... Do bear in mind that tags are arrived collectively because that's what editors thought would be useful and would work well, and they do tend to get revised as time and experience go by. I have tried doing it the way you suggest in some other places, e.g A24 Saintfield Road heading u...
	8	2019-01-06 21:55	ramthelinefeed	(i.e. I get the impression that people are looking, say, north, and so tagging the northbound cycle lane as being the 'left' one and the southbound cycle lane as being the 'right' one... with is silly :)
	9	2019-01-08 20:33	_Madfly ♦14	Again, thank you for replying I agree with you that the meaning of tags can change over time, but I do not believe that there is any consensus to change this at the moment- maybe I am wrong on this? I think that it follows the same logic that is used for the mapping of main roads. If there is physi...
	10	2019-01-08 21:23	ramthelinefeed	Ah I see what you meet about tying up pavements! But to play devil's advocate, the way you are joining to carriageways could be said to be rather artificial, and you're only doing it that way so that it works well in a particular renderer :) As the pavement doesn't really go in the s...
	11	2019-01-10 19:07	_Madfly ♦14	I'm glad that you now understand what I was badly trying to explain before :) I tried to join the pavements to the road where to curb is lowered, but maybe I got this wrong. I also did it to improve navigation, not to look good on the map. I think that mappers always have to strike a balance b...
	12	2019-01-11 00:24	ramthelinefeed	the thing is though, that Albert Bridge junction shows how roads are very often mapped/rendered on OSM in a way which shows traffic flows/lanes as physically separated, which (as you say) in reality they're just one big continuous block of tarmac. I can see considerable merit in doing cycle ...
	13	2019-01-12 20:54	_Madfly ♦14	I'd argue that at the junction it’s necessary to map it as separate ways for navigation, but for the cycle lanes, it's not. It is also a universal convention to map junctions like that, but it's not for the cycle lanes, as there is already an agreed upon way to map them. If ther...
	14	2019-01-13 11:42	ramthelinefeed	I sent you a message about this to your Inbox rather than on this changeset, as it's getting a bit unwieldy! Reading the discussion page on OSM wiki for the cycleway tag, honestly there seems a lot of confusion and differing views about it!
63495676 by ramthelinefeed @ 2018-10-13 21:49	1	2018-10-19 20:15	_Madfly ♦14	Should this be marked as a Cycle route? The wiki states that a cycle route should be "Named or numbered or otherwise signed". This path, and the others nearby on the A55 and A24 do not have any of those features.
	2	2018-10-20 01:00	ramthelinefeed	yes they are 'otherwise signed' - they are signed throughout with round blue 'cylists and pedestrians' shared use signs (and a red tarmac strip at the edge of the pavement), or green-tarmac cycle lanes, and some rectangular blue 'cycle route' signs, with rectangular b...
60661650 by ramthelinefeed @ 2018-07-12 18:13	1	2018-08-02 12:37	Richard ♦220	Hi, Great to see the work you've been putting in on editing cycle routes! We don't tag the refs with 'RR' or 'NCN'. The ref should just be the number. The regional/national status is contained in the network= tag (i.e. 'rcn' or 'ncn'). cheers Ric...
	2	2018-08-02 13:22	ramthelinefeed	yes, I have read that recommendation ... Is it wise, though? It only works if all the routes of the same category all follow the same numbering scheme - however this isn't the case in London, where TfL cycle superhighways and quietways are classed as 'rcn' rountes as well as Sustrans...
	3	2018-08-02 13:28	Richard ♦220	It's a bit more than a "recommendation", it's accepted practice for the past 10 years - if you think it should be changed then by all means do raise it on (say) the talk-gb list and see what people think, but just changing a few routes from their long-established status without n...
	4	2018-08-02 14:06	ramthelinefeed	no worries, it's easily fixed - I think there's just 3 relations need their tags fixed (two RR's in Sussex and a chunk of NCN1). Won't take 5 minutes to do.
	5	2018-08-02 14:07	Richard ♦220	cheers! :)
	6	2018-08-02 14:08	Richard ♦220	(I think I've done those already so it's probably ok)
	7	2018-08-02 14:15	ramthelinefeed	Oh, yes I see you have :) I will raise the matter on the relevant Openstreetmap Wiki pages (the thing with most of those on cycling is that they haven't been updated since about 2008, so I didn't think anyone was reading them any more! Most of the cycle route tagging in London seems t...
	8	2018-08-02 14:16	Richard ♦220	Cool. I'd suggest the talk-gb list rather than the wiki pages - OSM discussion generally doesn't happen on wiki pages in the way that it does in Wikipedia.
	9	2018-08-02 14:18	ramthelinefeed	An alternative solution for differentiating between Quietway/Cyclesuperhighway/Sustrans regional routes on 'cycling.waymarkedtrails.org' would be to add colour coding to their labels, as has thus far only been done with Norwich. I'm waiting on TfL to respond to my FoI request for th...
	10	2018-08-02 14:38	ramthelinefeed	I haven't the bandwidth for that, I'm afraid!
59687846 by ramthelinefeed @ 2018-06-09 10:20	1	2018-07-29 05:32	Jez Nicholson ♦71	Hi feline1, This change prompted a thread on the Talk-GB mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-July/021649.html I live in Brighton, and appreciate that 'Bartholomews' and 'Avenue' should be one road, they simply aren't. There are separate...
	2	2018-07-29 12:07	ramthelinefeed	Well, I have read the discussion thread. :) I used to live in Brighton for 20 years but I moved away last year. I cannot see that any reasonable person would not think the 'correct' name of the street is "Bartholomews Avenue", running along the north side of Bartholmews Squa...