| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 131872054 by PeterPan99 @ 2023-01-30 09:55 | 1 | 2023-01-30 09:56 | PeterPan99 | Typo in CS Comment: "Aldi and..." |
| 120120125 by PeterPan99 @ 2022-04-24 11:17 | 1 | 2022-04-25 19:02 | PeterPan99 | Sorry; the comments should say "... 2 cycle paths, one on the bridge..." |
| 113303225 by PeterPan99 @ 2021-11-02 21:20 | 1 | 2021-11-03 17:36 | philippec ♦742 | Dendermonde aed.Opnieuw bedankt, het is toch vreemd hoe dikwijls dat gebeurt bij mij.Dat bevestigt trouwens mijn mening dat we ons moeten wapenen tegen fouten met Mapillary. |
| 2 | 2021-11-03 17:56 | PeterPan99 | Thank you for your comments. I see that you have edited the mapillary tag again, but unfortunately you have made another mistake, by putting the whole mapillary URL in the field. You must only put the ID number in there. (It follows "&pKey=" in the URL). I have corrected this one f... | |
| 3 | 2021-11-03 17:59 | philippec ♦742 | No, that is no mistake, the Wiki is wrong. | |
| 4 | 2021-11-03 20:23 | kmpoppe ♦97 | @philippec, stating "the Wiki is wrong" without providing any more insight isn't really helpful in any discussion about this topic.I am currently working with all mapillary values and I can safely say: Of the 202.2k distinct values that are in the "mapillary" key, only 3... | |
| 5 | 2021-11-03 20:27 | philippec ♦742 | I | |
| 6 | 2021-11-03 20:29 | philippec ♦742 | I am the number one Mapillary contributor and mapper.Read the Wiki discussion.If by accident my work is destroyed, I will redo.I am not happy with foreign people without a profile and knowledge interfering with my work of five years.The wiki way was not possible to work with.https://forum.... | |
| 7 | 2021-11-03 20:56 | kmpoppe ♦97 | Thank you for linking the forum discussion.As this is in Dutch which I sadly do not speak, I had to use Google Translate on your last entry and am quite frankly shocked that you call me "a German do-gooder is busy maiming my work". If you believe that this is the right way for a respec... | |
| 8 | 2021-11-03 20:58 | philippec ♦742 | This was not well explained. | |
| 113302672 by PeterPan99 @ 2021-11-02 21:03 | 1 | 2021-11-03 17:44 | philippec ♦742 | Meer Afhaalpunt aedMisschien goed, misschien niet.Mijn mening = https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=27582&p=18 |
| 113297743 by PeterPan99 @ 2021-11-02 18:48 | 1 | 2021-11-02 19:51 | philippec ♦742 | Bedankt, het ware natuurlijk beter dat u het verbeterde. |
| 79533021 by PeterPan99 @ 2020-01-13 20:56 | 1 | 2021-07-05 17:36 | rskedgell ♦1,486 | The parkrun course in the route relation is quite different from the one I ran in 2019 and the parkrun website. Is this a new course from 2020? |
| 2 | 2021-07-06 19:10 | PeterPan99 | Hi, I regret that I do not know. a. I have never participated in Parkrun.b. I did not create the original relation with the Parkrun route; nor did I intentionally modify it.I just ensured that I did not wreck the relation when I did some additional tagging on some way sections that are par... | |
| 82254942 by PeterPan99 @ 2020-03-16 11:30 | 1 | 2020-06-24 20:07 | tomhukins ♦217 | Firstly, thank you for your work on OpenStreetMap.Some of the bridges you added seem odd to me: the "Bridge 72" you added at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/747859531 is already mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33534416 and your version uses the "name" tag wherea... |
| 2 | 2020-06-24 21:44 | PeterPan99 | Thank you for raising this comment / question on my changeset.Sorry, but I was not aware that Bridge 72 also had another name. I am not convinced that tagging this information as “bridge ref=<nn>” is useful. My experience is that, when organising runs in the area, I often fin... | |
| 3 | 2020-06-25 14:11 | tomhukins ♦217 | Thank you for your detailed, informative reply. I agree that the "Tagging for the renderer" issue is more complicated than many mappers acknowledge.I also recognise that the default rendering of the map hides a lot of useful information. I suspect it's almost impossible to creat... | |
| 83431574 by PeterPan99 @ 2020-04-12 15:47 | 1 | 2020-04-13 10:04 | NorthIsland ♦18 | Thanks for your comment. However, I think your gps has a slight error. In any case, you need to address the fact that your re-aligned cyclepath goes through the old Bradwell Road railway platform. The embankments here would make it some way in from the edge of the woodland. |
| 2 | 2020-04-13 10:14 | PeterPan99 | Oops! Thank you for pointing out my error. I have re-aligned the Cycle and Foot Path to run along beside the platform. That GPS trace is obviously not very accurate; I have eventually RTFM and found that it has a more accurate mode, which I will try on my next trip. | |
| 82018931 by PeterPan99 @ 2020-03-10 18:02 | 1 | 2020-03-22 22:58 | CamelCaseNick ♦174 | Hey,what did you mean with wikidata=3? I think you meant some other key?CamelCaseNick |
| 2 | 2020-03-22 22:58 | CamelCaseNick ♦174 | * for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35959554 | |
| 3 | 2020-03-23 07:08 | PeterPan99 | Oops! That was a typo. Was meant to be "width=3", but width was already set. Thanks for spotting it. Has been deleted. | |
| 82265310 by PeterPan99 @ 2020-03-16 16:09 | 1 | 2020-03-19 23:41 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi, V8 is already in the loc_ref field and I do not think it should be in the name field. Can you please review this change?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-03-20 15:26 | PeterPan99 | Hi Mike,Thank you for raising this issue. I did think for quite a while before making this edit. However, as a resident of Milton Keynes for almost 20 years, I certainly regard the name of that “grid road” as “V8 Marlborough Street”.My reasons are: 1.\tRoad signs sho... | |
| 3 | 2020-03-20 15:59 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | HI Peter, thanks for your detailed reply. I certainly don't consider this to be tagging for the renderer! It is simply that when numbers are used in sequence, this usually indicates a reference rather than a name ( although I know there are some street names such as Road 1, Avenue 2 etc). It is... | |
| 4 | 2020-03-20 17:18 | PeterPan99 | Hi Mike, Thank you for your prompt reply. I regret that I do still feel, quite strongly, that "V8" is part of the name, so I will not be reverting my edits. I am not sure that I would accept the Post Office as the final authority on addresses. All they really use is the house number and... | |
| 79926923 by PeterPan99 @ 2020-01-22 15:55 | 1 | 2020-01-24 11:28 | highflyer74 ♦2,447 | Hi there!Can you check https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/246116680 please? moop=no seems unusual...Greetings! |
| 2 | 2020-01-24 13:41 | PeterPan99 | Thanks for pointing out my typo.This has already been corrected (moop --> moped), in Changeset: 80030065moop -> mopedClosed about 2 hours ago by mueschel | |
| 3 | 2020-01-24 14:35 | highflyer74 ♦2,447 | Ah, didn't see that. But welcome anyway :-) All the best from across the Channel! | |
| 74915060 by PeterPan99 @ 2019-09-25 14:53 | 1 | 2019-10-11 14:49 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | There seems to be some confusion about Newport Road. It either needs to be primary with a ref of A5130, or if it is no longer the A5130, and has not been made a B road then it needs to be tertiary. Secondary with an A ref is definitely incorrect! Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-10-11 15:05 | PeterPan99 | Thank for your helpful comment. Yes, I'll try to get down there in the next few days and check again what the signage says. From memory, I'm pretty certain that it is signed in Black lettering on a White background (which means Primary route, but NOT a Trunk Route, doesn't it?). I ... | |
| 3 | 2019-10-12 13:57 | PeterPan99 | Thank you very much for drawing my attention to this error. I have now been on a trip along what used to be the A5130 and can confirm that it no longer has a Ref No. I will downgrade it to tertiary and remove the Ref (or change it to Old_Ref, as I see that some other sections have been). There ar... | |
| 68054170 by PeterPan99 @ 2019-03-12 09:12 | 1 | 2019-03-12 12:01 | rskedgell ♦1,486 | Hi. You need commas between the time ranges, i.e.opening_hours=Mo 09:00-13:00,14:00-17:30; We 09:00-13:00; Th-Fr 09:00-13:00,14:00-17:30; Sa 09:00-12:30You might find these tools usefulhttp://projets.pavie.info/yohours/https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/ |
| 2 | 2019-03-12 14:11 | PeterPan99 | Thanks @rskedgell. I have added the commas and used the tool to check it. Thanks for your help. | |
| 52836975 by PeterPan99 @ 2017-10-11 18:55 | 1 | 2017-10-11 18:58 | PeterPan99 | Sorry! I pressed Update too quickly!!Description should say, "Moved Kents Hill Primary School to correct location. Created construction site for Kents Hill Primary School." Source: Consultation document for Kents Hill Primary and Secondary Schools. |
| 51027821 by PeterPan99 @ 2017-08-11 09:56 | 1 | 2017-08-13 22:04 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi, please do not name highways with names such as Bridge 85A. This is incorrect. Firstly 85A is not a name, it is a reference. Secondly, the reference for a bridge goes in the bridge:ref field and the bridge name goes in bridge:name so that the road name can be correctly shown in the name field.\... |
| 2 | 2017-08-14 09:58 | PeterPan99 | Hi Mike,If I delete the names (in the case of footbridges) and revert to the road names (for roads), how do I make the Bridge Ref display on the standard view of the map, please?I only started adding / changing the names to get them to display and to give consistency after I saw some with no nam... | |
| 3 | 2017-08-14 10:38 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi Peter, I believe you are correct that bridge:ref is not rendered on the standard OSM map (the bridges in question had bridge_ref which was an older convention). However, incorrect data should not be set simply to get the standard map to display something in a particular way. You may be interested... | |
| 44589789 by PeterPan99 @ 2016-12-22 12:38 | 1 | 2016-12-26 10:22 | mapping man ♦8 | The name tag doesn't need to be filled with "Oak". It looks a bit odd on the map. The name should be used only if the tree is a known landmark . For instance it could be a wishing or memory tree. In this case "wishing tree" would make sense in the name field. |
| 2 | 2016-12-26 20:22 | PeterPan99 | OK. Sorry if I have contravened a convention. I tagged it with the name "Oak" because is is a very prominent, old Oak tree, possibly verging on "Landmark" status. The house facing it is named "Oak View", so I thought it might be appropriate. In response to your comm... | |
| 3 | 2016-12-27 11:25 | mapping man ♦8 | Hi. There is no set convention, its just that you don't see many trees named. One exception that I could think of would have been the Oak tree in the Intu shopping centre. From what you describe I would say that you were correct in using Oak in the name tag. | |
| 4 | 2016-12-27 21:42 | PeterPan99 | Thanks for your comments @mapping man. I have added the name "Oak" again. | |
| 44589978 by PeterPan99 @ 2016-12-22 12:47 | 1 | 2016-12-22 12:52 | PeterPan99 | Correction: This is the North-West Corner of the car park (not the North-East!) |
| 43810050 by PeterPan99 @ 2016-11-19 21:25 | 1 | 2016-11-19 21:28 | PeterPan99 | Just looked at it again and realised the error was that, although it IS one-way, it should be Eastbound, not Westbound, as it originally was. I will amend again. |
| 43714152 by PeterPan99 @ 2016-11-16 23:36 | 1 | 2016-11-16 23:42 | PeterPan99 | I added this small section of Tongwell Street because, in the Edit view, there was a gap. On looking again at the standard map, there was no gap, so I have duplicated this section of trunk road. I will try to delete it again.PeterPan99 |