OSM changeset discussions of SomeoneElse

Changeset	#	Tmstmp UTC	Contributor	Comment
164834965 by philipcullen @ 2025-04-11 21:49	1	2025-12-05 23:31	SomeoneElse	I don't know much about UPRNs, but just checking - is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/27212056 OK?
	2	2025-12-05 23:56	philipcullen ♦15	This really interesting (if you can excuse my enthusiasm). It seems that that UPRN was at the end of the road, but has then been moved. I added it manually when it was at the junction between "Huntington Road" and "Brandsby Grove". It seems to be located there now, in the latest ...
175412690 by Pete Owens @ 2025-12-02 17:25 Active block	1	2025-12-03 18:02	tomhukins ♦245	You and TomJeffs keep reverting each others' work. It seems you aren't talking to each other to reach a conscensus, or involving others. If you are unable to agree on how to map, please involve the Data Working group: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes For those of use who...
	2	2025-12-03 18:38	TomJeffs ♦29	There is no point in creating cycleways that end with no means for a person to cycle back onto the highway. Banning cycling in changesets like this renders those cycleways completely useless to navigation software. Furthermore, adding "dismount" is incorrect and discriminatory, since s...
	3	2025-12-03 18:39	TomJeffs ♦29	I would also add that there is no justification whatsoever for cycling=no at any highway crossing. Cyclists have a common law right to use the highway and crossings are on the highway. Making them inaccessible is legally wrong and I will always remove those tags when I find them.
	4	2025-12-03 18:40	TomJeffs ♦29	edit - by highway I mean carriageway
	5	2025-12-03 23:37	Pete Owens Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	6	2025-12-04 08:35	TomJeffs ♦29	> WRT mobility aids, Disabled folk are permitted to use motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters limited to 4mph (not bicycles) according to pedestrian rules. Right, so wheeling is permitted on pavements. Also, please explain why you are banning children from cycling on the pavement, whe...
	7	2025-12-04 17:01	Pete Owens Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	8	2025-12-05 12:32	SomeoneElse	https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19111 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19112
160841042 by BarryMyles @ 2024-12-31 16:46	1	2025-12-03 22:21	SomeoneElse	Hello, Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/338502643 really a forest of palm trees? I know that southwest Scotland has the Gulf Stream, but this seems a bit unlikely :) Cheers, Andy
	2	2025-12-04 00:32	BarryMyles ♦14	lol! Definitely not a forest of palm trees in Scotland. I've fixed this. Thanks for this amusing bit of attribute analysis.
	3	2025-12-04 01:43	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
	4	2025-12-04 12:09	marc__marc ♦1,321	Hello, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19916224 the new object for this area is still described as a forest of palm trees :) Regards, Marc
169531102 by maurobe57 @ 2025-07-26 22:42	1	2025-09-21 10:02	Taya_S ♦1,524	Question, why did you delete the null-island/Soul Buoy in this changeset?
	2	2025-12-03 19:54	ika-chan! ♦311	Partially undone (buoy restored): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175461804
	3	2025-12-03 20:39	SomeoneElse	I think it was "missing presumed sunk" wasn't it? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154996123 and the links from there. That one Mastodon reply remains, but I'm sure at around that time there were more links to "cruise ships failing to see it" etc.
	4	2025-12-03 21:56	ika-chan! ♦311	Thanks, I've managed to find the reply chain at https://en.osm.town/@pietervdvn/112928272482062515with that link, and the outcome at the time was to mark it as disused. I originally restored the node because user "maurobe57" did not provide a reasonable reply, so I assumed it is still...
	5	2025-12-03 21:56	ika-chan! ♦311	Sorry, I meant https://en.osm.town/@pietervdvn/112928272482062515 .
175312896 by ADHBEKB @ 2025-11-30 13:30	1	2025-12-03 00:05	SomeoneElse	Oops - I think that something's gone a bit wrong with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/238218979#map=19/52.032914/-0.550840 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/238218977#map=19/52.033010/-0.550553 . They used to join - see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gDg from a few days ago, but now there&...
175407373 by run'n'ride @ 2025-12-02 15:12	1	2025-12-02 15:58	letsridebikes ♦70	How do you know it's access=no? You haven't visited any of these sites to survey permissions
	2	2025-12-02 18:35	run'n'ride ♦9	I do visit...I also confirm on OS maps. Footpath only, so access all is No, foot is designated. Not difficult to understand & ensure footpath is correctly marked. Marking as yes to All results in apps/maps that use OSM showing these as if they're a ROW, which is not the case for all. Not go...
	3	2025-12-02 18:37	letsridebikes ♦70	"Confirming on OS maps" is a serious copyright violation
	4	2025-12-02 18:47	letsridebikes ♦70	You've not visited this location; I was here on Sunday, and there are no signs prohibiting access by other users. Stop damaging the map. You've been asked many times to stop doing this https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-access-no-tagging-of-uk-public-rights-of-way/132798
	5	2025-12-02 21:43	SomeoneElse	Hello, Andy from the Data Working Group here - just picking up a couple of points from the above: > I also confirm on OS maps. For the avoidance of doubt, we can't use that as a source for OSM, unless it's either out of copyright (many old maps are) or released under a compatibl...
174826705 by b-unicycling @ 2025-11-18 18:17	1	2025-11-23 12:27	SomeoneElse	Any reason why you've gone with amenity rather than man_made for these? Previously there were 70 uniquely man_made https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2d and 45 uniquely amenity https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2c , and 16 both https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2g2f . There are now 234 amenity, but the wiki...
	2	2025-11-28 22:26	b-unicycling ♦256	I meant to write a diary post about this decision, but I haven't gotten round to it. I mentioned it in one of my last videos, but of course I cannot expect you to watch all of these on the odd chance that I will explain myself.
	3	2025-12-01 23:24	SomeoneElse	(for completeness - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/407814 ) Thanks!
86937588 by SK53 @ 2020-06-21 15:02	1	2025-11-29 00:43	SomeoneElse	I think that "location=rii" might be a typo? See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gpC . Cheers, Andy
	2	2025-11-29 02:10	SK53 ♦865	Fixed a few so far: road alignments need a lot of tidying in this area. Will do rest in a sensible editor
	3	2025-12-01 23:22	SomeoneElse	Thanks - down to 388 now...
173904057 by Davide Pastelli @ 2025-10-28 22:06	1	2025-11-30 19:39	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
	2	2025-11-30 19:56	Davide Pastelli ♦1	I am familiar with it, how can I edit the source?
	3	2025-12-01 23:03	SomeoneElse	You can't edit the source in the changeset tag but you can explain in a bit more detail here how you did use various sources when making this edit.
174343697 by mactavishfr @ 2025-11-07 17:00	1	2025-11-30 19:44	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
	2	2025-11-30 23:01	mactavishfr ♦2	Yes sorry, I used google maps only for open hours, but I am indeed very familiar with this place and mostly used local knowledge. Thanks for the warning
	3	2025-12-01 22:58	SomeoneElse	OK - done, thanks
174794510 by Miui Cat @ 2025-11-17 22:25	1	2025-11-30 19:22	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to ...
	2	2025-12-01 10:27	Miui Cat ♦1	how do I change it
	3	2025-12-01 22:50	SomeoneElse	You can't change the changeset source tag, but you can explain in a bit more detail what sources you used to make the edit and how you used them.
	4	2025-12-02 07:01	adiatmad ♦450	@Miui Cat If you’d like, you’re welcome to join the OSM Indonesia Telegram. There, you can share or discuss anything related to OSM with other local enthusiasts. (https://t.me/osmindonesia)
175114505 by Simon Sustrans @ 2025-11-25 14:52	1	2025-11-29 13:19	SomeoneElse	Hello, Not sure how it happened but there's now a bit of a gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2894908#map=19/51.699189/-3.628884 ?
	2	2025-12-01 15:28	Simon Sustrans ♦6	Well spotted! I had selected a power cable instead of the adjacent track, now corrected.
	3	2025-12-01 22:41	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
173872178 by JargeZ @ 2025-10-28 08:56	1	2025-11-30 20:02	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
174200535 by Jorgintro @ 2025-11-04 15:41	1	2025-11-30 20:00	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
174616965 by Serge Grusenmeyer @ 2025-11-13 17:53	1	2025-11-30 19:58	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
174474050 by PsicólogoClademir @ 2025-11-10 17:12	1	2025-11-30 19:55	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
174184449 by Monoboy @ 2025-11-04 10:00	1	2025-11-30 19:53	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
173972770 by BambinaChinita @ 2025-10-30 12:03	1	2025-11-30 19:50	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
173906556 by wqC-gmN5 @ 2025-10-29 00:28	1	2025-11-30 19:48	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
174271995 by Yashwant Classes @ 2025-11-06 06:53	1	2025-11-30 19:42	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
173819219 by Taya Fields @ 2025-10-27 03:43	1	2025-11-30 19:37	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
174534870 by ulliwww @ 2025-11-11 23:33	1	2025-11-30 19:34	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
174400582 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-11-09 02:19	1	2025-11-30 19:32	SomeoneElse	Hello, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a sourc...
173982537 by GamenHaaDee @ 2025-10-30 15:32	1	2025-10-30 16:12	eggie ♦42,698	Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. MVG, Eggie Namens de OSM Community
	2	2025-11-30 19:28	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!, On this changeset you've used a "source=Google Maps" tag. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to b...
170261075 by olane @ 2025-08-10 19:14	1	2025-11-30 11:40	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just to let you know, I've changed "sidewalk=both=separate" to "sidewalk:both=separate" on these in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175309008 - that's the more usual way of expressing this. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-30 11:45	olane ♦1	Ah! Thank you for the correction!
159104995 by TLC10 @ 2024-11-13 19:41	1	2025-11-30 00:10	SomeoneElse	Assuming that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1249561327/history has "Smyths Transport" in it I'd be tempted to add an "office=company" node in there to help people locate it. I don't think that people will find just "depot=truck" with no other tags (as you...
174924462 by MacLondon @ 2025-11-20 20:58	1	2025-11-29 14:01	SomeoneElse	Hello, Is there any reason why https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6490317#map=19/51.534133/-0.006630 has a gap in it that is a different relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17648128 Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-29 23:05	MacLondon ♦224	Yes, it should all be in the same relation. I've corrected the error now.
	3	2025-11-29 23:11	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
101043506 by b-unicycling @ 2021-03-15 10:35	1	2025-11-29 16:49	SomeoneElse	Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6984703 really an administrative boundary? It shows up in the details at https://nominatim.osm.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W&osmid=117141623&class=highway as if it was; that was prompted by the note saying that the address from Nominatim is wrong: h...
	2	2025-11-29 21:26	b-unicycling ♦256	I have no idea and I honestly don't fully understand the question.
	3	2025-11-29 21:47	SomeoneElse	The person who added https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4518625 says "Address for this place is completly wrong". I presume they're using Nominatim to work out the address. Part of the problem is that there's no address on the house, so Nominatim grabs the nearest road and uses...
175102058 by Simon Sustrans @ 2025-11-25 10:05	1	2025-11-29 13:27	SomeoneElse	Hello, I've mp idea whether it was your edit here, but https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5487096 now has some gaps in it - see http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5487096 . Best Regards, Andy
175225640 by OpenStreetMap678 @ 2025-11-28 07:01	1	2025-11-29 12:43	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! You've extended https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46343328 here up towards the north of Callendar. Previously, e.g. at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gqC , the national park boundary followed the river. Now there's a duplicate line that you can see at h...
175121940 by CrysMelyn @ 2025-11-25 17:58	1	2025-11-25 19:34	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
175024205 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-11-23 12:43	1	2025-11-23 12:43	SomeoneElse	I've not been in for years but news reports suggest it was still there in at least 2023.
141768502 by skinlo @ 2023-09-26 10:54	1	2025-11-23 11:34	SomeoneElse	Thanks for fixing this. You've no idea if there's a diversion for the New River Path signposted, have you? Just asking on the off chance... Cheers, Andy
174882401 by 0235 @ 2025-11-19 22:46	1	2025-11-19 23:15	SomeoneElse	Re https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/161072 , I'm not sure what the original issue was. 10 years ago it was like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2fP3 . Since then https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763513258 as been added. According to local authority PRoW data it is a public footpath: https://m...
174515494 by Simon Sustrans @ 2025-11-11 14:56	1	2025-11-14 11:42	SomeoneElse	Just checking, is this OK? A local mapper remapped it recently to reflect some realignment due to ongoing work on the A30. Appently it changes fairly regularly so I guess it might be back to this again...
	2	2025-11-18 11:16	Simon Sustrans ♦6	I'm happy to defer to the local mapper as I have not been at this location for a few years. I know there are changes associated with the A30 works.
	3	2025-11-19 21:18	SomeoneElse	OK, I've changed that back in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174879700 . The previous conversation was in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174120016 - the author of that is the person to talk to about where it really goes!
174869981 by ⇄ john paul jones & gringo @ 2025-11-19 17:18	1	2025-11-19 20:03	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
174664031 by VLD322 @ 2025-11-14 20:17	1	2025-11-18 00:33	SomeoneElse	Thanks - this matches my recollection. A remaining problem here (from well before your edit) is that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/195774187 seems to go across a wall and back, but that's entirely unrelated.
	2	2025-11-20 19:12	VLD322 ♦4	I really appreciate your confirmation. Thank you for the comment and hope you have a fantastic day!
174736769 by Mateusz Konieczny @ 2025-11-16 17:06	1	2025-11-16 18:20	SomeoneElse	Hello, For info I have asked these accounts to contact us: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18959 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18960 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18961 Can you please give us an examples of problems with any of these users that you may be...
	2	2025-11-17 21:51	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18960 for start https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Pan_palat is using photo of me for its avatar, despite having no permission and it being a copyright violation earlier had photo of someone else, probably was a similar trolling https://www.openstreetma...
	3	2025-11-17 21:53	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	oh, it is more obnoxious as it is either the same person or multiple people with the same trunk-related obsessions, editing similar roads and pope-number obsession and similar communication problems
	4	2025-11-17 21:54	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	I could easily write down more of Temat-Droga class of issues but I hope it is enough
	5	2025-11-17 22:35	SomeoneElse	Above I said "saying explicitly what is wrong with the way each user tagged them, why it was wrong, and if relevant where the Polish community decided that that tagging was wrong". Unfortunately, "more unexplained undiscussed nonsense trunk category changes" et al does not ans...
	6	2025-11-17 23:21	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	OK, that will take a bit more time. Lets start with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27597535/history or https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/41189769 problem is not with whether it is secondary or primary but because change was motivated by official road classification wh...
	7	2025-11-17 23:22	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	(for this specific account and this edit, I remember we have few more accounts)
	8	2025-11-17 23:41	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	In general problem here is less with that specific road has some innate primariness and user retagged it to trunk despite it not having trunkiness. Typically it is not about road being discussed and community reaching conclusion. Rather the problem is that some mappers (especially Temat-Droga)...
	9	2025-11-17 23:53	SomeoneElse	> would this be considered sufficient? Thanks - I now have one more object to keep an eye on, and something to point at when it changes. > osm.org/user/FILszew/history is one just appeared BTW Again, the same questions - what have they changed that does not match the Polish community&...
	10	2025-11-17 23:59	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339597002/history - Philet2137 and Pan_palat removed ref=5 solely because some official documents supposedly changed it was still signed last time anyone checked it, and they are not even disputing this (just changing stuff with "official paper says otherwis...
	11	2025-11-18 00:03	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1329312751/history - here it is clearly not highway=trunk Philet2137 is this time basing edit on a different type of official paper, E-road routing for some reason E75 was not moved to A1/S7 and still goes through city center luckily for residents it is not...
	12	2025-11-18 00:07	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	(are additional listings like that needed or is it enough for now? I prefer to not spend too long on that, unless it would be useful)
	13	2025-11-18 00:11	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	and to be clear, this type of confusion would be perfectly fine and not bannable offence if these would be new people but I strongly suspect that these accounts are operated by a single person
173284201 by Robert Lazu @ 2025-10-14 16:19	1	2025-11-02 00:19	SomeoneElse	Hello Robert Lazu, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Are you sure that that these roads actually exist? They don't seem to be on any imagery available to OSM. What source did you use? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-03 17:27	Robert Lazu ♦1	Hi Andy, there are new residential homes built in there and as far as these don't appear on the map, they are leading to their homes.
	3	2025-11-05 23:45	SomeoneElse	What source did you use? It surely wasn't Bing Maps Aerial...
	4	2025-11-16 20:11	SomeoneElse	Please tell us what source you used, otherwise we will have to revert this.
	5	2025-11-17 18:57	Robert Lazu ♦1	As I mentioned, it's a new residence and there's no aerial maps updates at this time. The source is from the construction contractors of that new estate.
	6	2025-11-17 19:07	SomeoneElse	Did that information take the form of an image or a site plan? If so, what was the licence associated with that? If not, what form did it take?
174745634 by cubbe8 @ 2025-11-16 20:59	1	2025-11-17 00:37	SomeoneElse	Please use meaningful changeset comments. "fix" doesn't really help anyone to understand what you were doing. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments should give you some ideas.
173364882 by Robert Lazu @ 2025-10-16 12:56	1	2025-11-16 20:12	SomeoneElse	Hello, What made you think that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304255640/history was an unclassified road?
172492316 by ntzm @ 2025-09-26 15:46	1	2025-09-28 16:11	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello, is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22703714#map=19/53.397876/-1.432447 a separate bridge or a separate path on the bridge? I suspect that it'll need to be split where the bridge starts and ends and "layer=1" and "bridge=yes" added to the "bridge" bit.\...
	2	2025-11-15 11:12	ntzm ♦42	Hi, sorry I missed your message. The change you made is correct. Thanks!
	3	2025-11-15 11:23	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
174417785 by Wookey @ 2025-11-09 13:42	1	2025-11-12 21:40	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/478157148 is a gate, and the new way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39864664 connects directly to it. Does it join north or south of the gate (I'm guessing that it's one of the two and Vespucci has just merged it onto a nearby node). Also, I ...
	2	2025-11-13 00:26	Wookey ♦22	Well spotted. The gate has been moved sometime in the last few years. And yes Vespucci's snapping put the new one in the wrong place. I have now fixed up the two relations using these segments as well
	3	2025-11-13 07:52	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
174576603 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-11-12 20:29	1	2025-11-12 20:29	SomeoneElse	(from survey)
83829448 by Detektiv Jim Gordon @ 2020-04-20 15:13	1	2025-11-08 21:52	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've added a name:en here of "Church of Our Lady" (which is a translation of the words in the German name), but in English I've always known it in English as the "Frauenkirche". Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-10 17:19	Detektiv Jim Gordon ♦7	Hello Andy, I have taken the English name of the Dresden Frauenkirche from travel guides and from the English Wikipedia. The name 'Church of Our Lady' can also be kept as an alt_name. What do you mean?
	3	2025-11-11 20:00	SomeoneElse	The English wikipedia is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frauenkirche,_Dresden and actually matches my recollection of English name usage. "Church of Our Lady" is in brackets on the first line as a translation, but the name Frauenkirche is used as the name subsequently. That approach is si...
	4	2025-11-14 17:03	Detektiv Jim Gordon ♦7	You can change it if you want.
174436886 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-11-09 21:24	1	2025-11-09 22:29	SomeoneElse	Also Leeman Road in York.
172763857 by mrpacmanmap @ 2025-10-02 19:42	1	2025-11-09 14:32	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think you accidentally added tracking information to the website - utm_source=local&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=oldbury .
155146231 by lmcj @ 2024-08-12 12:19	1	2025-11-09 14:27	SomeoneElse	Oops - the "website" added here seems to have tracking information in it "sc_cmp=refygstc*2428&utm_source=yext_google&utm_campaign=local_Express_&utm_medium=organic". Maybe just a cut and paste thing?
174321119 by IanJBooth @ 2025-11-07 08:12	1	2025-11-09 14:21	SomeoneElse	Hello, Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Please don't add tracking links to OSM. As you will have noticed they get removed pretty quickly. Untruths in changeset comments ("Added more information abou the store ") is also not appreciated.
174264851 by Patrick Harper @ 2025-11-06 00:23	1	2025-11-08 23:14	SomeoneElse	Thanks for tidying this up. You wouldn't happen to know if the NCN4 still routes through here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1318928#map=17/51.544100/-2.640554 shows a gap, but it might just be all a building site... Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-08 23:29	SomeoneElse	... and Eurovelo 2 as well: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5479822#map=17/51.543533/-2.639439 .
173444988 by ThePigeonCompany15 @ 2025-10-18 11:05 Active block	1	2025-11-08 23:08	SomeoneElse	Hello "ThePigeonCompany15", Can you explain what "England Update 1.4.3 (Do Not Change! penalty charge: £150,000)" means? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-12-02 01:25	LordGarySugar ♦142	Reverted due to clear vandalism deletion of motorway slip roads
174352107 by Keith Barnett @ 2025-11-07 21:10	1	2025-11-08 00:52	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
174352262 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-11-07 21:15	1	2025-11-07 21:31	SomeoneElse	Also 05/11, Huntington, ts2365b
174240333 by quilkin @ 2025-11-05 12:59	1	2025-11-05 23:08	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
174120016 by quilkin @ 2025-11-02 20:08	1	2025-11-04 23:36	SomeoneElse	Hello, Do you fancy having a go at adding the roads to the west to the NCN so that it is continuous again? Currently there is a gap: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/167055#map=17/50.317603/-5.082389 Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-05 12:56	quilkin ♦1	Andy - Yes, of course, I should have done that. Thanks for pointing this out. All the different crossing points along the new A30 are in such a state of flux it's difficult to keep up! Chris
174206438 by aboc @ 2025-11-04 17:51	1	2025-11-04 20:47	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
174037981 by VLD318 @ 2025-10-31 20:38	1	2025-10-31 22:05	SomeoneElse	Hello, Earlier (on https://osm.org/changeset/173023412 , which will have been emailed to you and you can see at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=23159893 ) I mentioned the discussion going on the the UK forum about this. You seem to be ignoring it - as you're still ...
	2	2025-10-31 22:09	SomeoneElse	Separately to that you seem to have made a rather poor job of mapping Brownley Road. Looking at the imagery I can see lots of driveways. In order to do a good job of "separate sidewalk" mapping you must map places where people can cross between the pavement and the road. Failure to do t...
	3	2025-11-03 18:59	VLD318 ♦8	Hello SomeoneElse, Regarding the discussion in the thread, a lead representative from our team, RVR015, responded on my behalf. I apologize if it appeared I was ignoring it. We are monitoring the ongoing discussion. Concerning Brownley Road, I acknowledge that there are several residential d...
	4	2025-11-03 19:42	SomeoneElse	Picking these up one at a time > Regarding the discussion in the thread, a lead representative from our team, RVR015, responded on my behalf. When was that? We got an email that _might_ have been in response to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18907 (but it's difficult to be...
	5	2025-11-03 20:00	SomeoneElse	> For your reference, here are links to relevant information from the OSM wiki: > osm.wiki/Key:crossing:continuous#:~:text=When%20the%20road%20that%20crosses%20a%20continuous%20sidewalk%20is%20a%20minor%20service%20road%2C%20such%20as%20a%20driveway%20or%20a%20car%20park%20entrance%2C%20there...
	6	2025-11-03 20:16	SomeoneElse	Finally, the most important part. The thing that persuaded me to wake up the DWG ticket for all this yesterday was the comment on the forum here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/separate-sidewalks-or-not-near-ealing/132613/239 that says "so I’ve gone back to Google Maps". J...
	7	2025-11-04 06:29	osmuser63783 ♦67	Sorry to barge in here, but I think you're talking past each other on the topic of mapping driveways as (continuous) crossings and I can help clarify. What Andy is saying is that if you are drawing the sidewalk separately, then you should also draw the driveways, this is so that pedestrian r...
	8	2025-11-04 09:43	SomeoneElse	osmuser63783 is correct - this is not about crossings (continuous or otherwise). There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by Facebook of how roads work in the UK.
174037767 by VLD319 @ 2025-10-31 20:30	1	2025-11-01 11:03	Pete Owens Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	2	2025-11-03 17:36	VLD319 ♦4	Hi Pete, I added foot=no tags here because foot traffic seemed meant to stay on the designated sidewalks next to this cycleway; the cycleway portion itself did not appear intended for pedestrians. I understand your concern regarding the absence of clear signage. Feel free to update the relevant ...
	3	2025-11-03 21:53	SomeoneElse	@VLD319 when I was last in this bit of Manchester I crossed the M60 not at this interchange but at the one to the east. I can assure you that there the cycleways are all multi-use. "foot" access in OSM should reflect legal access, and what Pete Owens says above is correct. If there is o...
	4	2025-11-04 00:59	Pete Owens Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	5	2025-11-04 18:54	VLD319 ♦4	Thank you for the clarification. I understand and will not add foot=no tags going forward unless there is specific signage present prohibiting foot access.
174136618 by woodpeck_repair @ 2025-11-03 08:52	1	2025-11-03 20:54	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
173093436 by josh09dmello @ 2025-10-10 12:48 Active block	1	2025-10-16 18:04	user_5359 ♦20,421	Hello! What is the mean of the tags addr:country -> is_in:country address -> addr:full amenity=battery_exchange company_name -> manufactor name -> description station_type ? What is the difference between capacity:charging und capacity? Did you know the key combination amenit...
	2	2025-11-03 00:13	SomeoneElse	Hello josh09dmello, You appear to be performing an undiscussed import. Please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025110310000015] josh09dmello" to discuss. If you don't we'll like have to revert your edits. Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on beh...
173709369 by Nord Ambulanse2 @ 2025-10-24 09:59 Active block	1	2025-10-24 10:03	NeisBot ♦3,498	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 focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions co...
	2	2025-10-24 10:03	NeisBot ♦3,498	Just to help illustrate what I mean, here is how your description could look in a more neutral, factual form: "Nord Ambulanse medical services"
	3	2025-10-24 11:49	Marek-M ♦976	Reklama w OSM nie jest tolerowana. Czym miał być ten punkt, który chciałeś dodać? To co utworzyłeś jest kompletną bzdurą, bo przecież Nord Ambulanse nie ma siedziby na ulicy/chodniku. Wycofuję tą edycję, bo jest kompletnie nieprawidłowa. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changese...
	4	2025-10-24 12:05	pitscheplatsch ♦5,697	Thanks Marek-M.
	5	2025-11-02 23:31	SomeoneElse	For info: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18910
164944762 by 𒂼𒄄　 @ 2025-04-14 15:29	1	2025-05-05 15:07	Renas Azad ♦33	انتباه: كتابة اسم كركوك بلغتين (العربية و الكردية) معاً، جاء نتيجة اتفاق بين اطراف مختلفة بعد نزاع طويل و نقاش عقيم حول كتابة اسم المدينة باحدى اللغتين المحليتين الس�...
	2	2025-05-05 15:14	𒂼𒄄　 ♦42	@Renas Azad التغيير هو لجعل الاسم باللغة المحلية للمدينة، ولاداعي لاستخدام لغة الاقليات، هذا هو الحال في جميع المدن على خرائط الشارع المفتوحة.
	3	2025-05-05 15:48	Renas Azad ♦33	يبقى الكلام ادعاء طالما لا يوجد دليل يدعم ذلك، و خير دليل هو الاحصاء السكاني الذي اجري مؤخرا، كان املنا به لحسم هذا النقاش العقيم لكن عمدت الحكومة عدم ادراج القومية �...
	4	2025-05-05 15:53	𒂼𒄄　 ♦42	اللغة الكردية هي لغة اقليات وليس لغة محلية مستخدمة في كل المدينة حالها كحال اللغة العربية، ولايمكن اعتبارها مناصفة في الاهمية كون اللغة العربية هي الاساسية المستخد...
	5	2025-11-01 13:03	SomeoneElse	@https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/%F0%92%82%BC%F0%92%84%84%E3%80%80 What evidence are you using to say that "Kurdish is a minority language, not a local language" here? The last time I looked politically there was a fairly even split: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Iraqi_parliamenta...
	6	2025-11-01 13:14	𒂼𒄄　 ♦42	المعرفة المحلية. عدد مقاعد الأحزاب لاتعني نسب القوميات والطوائف حيث ان في العراق ليس لدينا عنصرية ولاطائفية مثل هذا المنطق، أي شخص يستطيع أن يصوت لاي حزب ولاي قومي�...
	7	2025-11-02 21:03	SomeoneElse	Do you have any numbers to back up your "Local knowledge"? Also, is that "local" as in Kirkuk, or "local" as in Iraq?
	8	2025-11-02 21:10	𒂼𒄄　 ♦42	لا استطيع اعطائك احصائية دقيقة بارقام بدقة عالية لاني لست موضف احصائي في وزارة التخطيط، ولكن استطيع ان اقول لك اعداد تقدرية حسب معرفتي المحلية كأبن لمدينة كركوك. ا�...
173834026 by aboc @ 2025-10-27 11:43	1	2025-11-01 12:40	SomeoneElse	Hello, Any reason why the Stelvio Pass no longer has a name in English (or Polish)? https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/901697069 Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-01 16:10	aboc ♦16	Hello, The english and polish name referred to the mountain pass, not the road proper. As Italian roads have no official multilingual name in English or Polish in the region, and the name in question duplicates the name of the pass over a long swath, I opted to remove the name. If this is done in...
	3	2025-11-02 20:57	SomeoneElse	> The english and polish name referred to the mountain pass, not the road proper. I can't comment on Polish, but if you say "Stelvio Pass" to an English person, if they've heard of it, they'll think of the road, not the mountain pass itself. If I do an anonymous we...
	4	2025-11-03 09:30	aboc ♦16	Perfect, I will re-add the names and put a variation of "stelvio pass road" on alt_name
173655353 by CheeseSplatter @ 2025-10-23 05:12	1	2025-10-26 00:50	InfiNorth ♦14	This has been reverted. Do not make massive, sweeping edits like this without consultation with the community or third-party review. Current road designations are based on City and CRD data. This is effectively vandalism and has been reported as such prior to reversion.
	2	2025-11-02 00:01	SomeoneElse	Hello, Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Whenever there's a question about something like highway classification I'd definitely suggest discussing it on the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ca/95 . It's true that there can be inconsistencies, but ...
	3	2025-11-02 15:16	InfiNorth ♦14	This reversion was also based on the user adding duplicate bikeways where they already existed, cluttering the map, creating potential way finding conflicts, and deleting entire sections of major roads without substitution in neighbouring Saanich. As such, I chose to revert all the edits relating to...
	4	2025-11-02 15:28	SomeoneElse	Agreed that sometimes "revert and please try again" is sometimes the best policy.
	5	2025-11-29 03:49	CheeseSplatter ♦1	Apologies to all for confusion and workloads created. Will ask when in doubt going forward. Bike Lanes: I didn't add bike lanes where there weren't any, although perhaps I added different types, Shelbourne St. in Saanich has had substantial recent changes, everything from bike lanes to ...
172050708 by matty817 @ 2025-09-17 08:19	1	2025-11-02 13:21	SomeoneElse	Hello, I'd be a little cautious with adding locality names from OS OpenData such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13149024969 - I've lived just down the road on and off for 60 years and have never heard that name. Many OS OpenData names are historical (as in centuries old). What ca...
	2	2025-11-02 20:13	matty817 ♦6	Hi Andy. Thanks for letting me know! I haven't been completely indiscriminate. One could argue - for instance - that the nearby "Plantation" of the same name evidences "World's End". But I'll try to be more judicious in the future. And cheers for letting me know ab...
174021746 by NTTrailsNTH @ 2025-10-31 13:39	1	2025-11-02 01:52	SomeoneElse	Something has gone very wrong here https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1624090/history had 677 members before you edited it and only 664 afterwards. Did you get any warnings on screen? If not, I'd suggest that you log a bug with Vespucci to get the problem looked at.
	2	2025-11-02 02:11	SomeoneElse	Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19508737 basically the same as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19774128 ? If so, the shorter, partial one (the one I added earlier) can be deleted - but near Marsden I think the https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19508737#map=19/53.604303/-1.9404...
	3	2025-11-02 02:30	SomeoneElse	I've re-added the memberships so that https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1624090/history is now 679.
174073552 by Rebecca Majidadi @ 2025-11-01 17:36	1	2025-11-01 23:13	Fizzie-DWG ♦33,221	Hello Rebecca & welcome to OSM. Sorry to point out issues with your first edit, but you actually deleted part of the boundary between Northern Ireland & Eire! We assume that as accidental, but your edit is in the process of being reverted. Thanks, Graeme Fitzpatrick, Moderator, OSMF Data W...
	2	2025-11-02 00:51	SomeoneElse	Hi Rebecca, I've undone the deletion of part of the border. What was it you were trying to do? Maybe we can help if you say what it is? Best Regards, Andy
173944302 by floppa @ 2025-10-29 18:57 Active block	1	2025-10-29 19:37	pitscheplatsch ♦5,697	Hi, I noticed that the Polish name of вулиця Каменярів was changed from ulica Kamieniarzy to ulica Kleinowska. Could you please explain the reason for this change? The new name doesn’t seem to correspond to the Ukrainian or English versions. Thanks.
	2	2025-10-29 19:40	Dawid2849 ♦821	I think that he is adding old Polish names from before WWII, which should go to old_name:pl instead of name:pl
	3	2025-10-29 19:47	pitscheplatsch ♦5,697	That may well be the case, but I can't really judge. In any case, he's currently removing the existing name:pl tags to add his Polish street names. Let's wait and see, maybe he'll reply.
	4	2025-10-29 19:53	Dawid2849 ♦821	Yeah, removing existing Polish names (which are correct) is definitely wrong. Especially with no source provided
	5	2025-10-31 19:06	floppa Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	6	2025-11-01 23:45	SomeoneElse	Hello floppa, Can you suggest a source for the name that I have used here? If I search for "ulica Kleinowska" I can find plenty of old references, but nothing recent. Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
	7	2025-11-15 10:38	floppa Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	8	2025-11-15 10:57	Dawid2849 ♦821	These are historical names, should be added in old_name:pl
	9	2025-12-01 18:34	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	> should be added in old_name:pl or even more likely, they should not be added ag all and all floppa edits purged
	10	2025-12-01 22:24	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 175378570 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some pre war Polish names; these do not belong in OSM. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19062
174071292 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2025-11-01 16:41	1	2025-11-01 16:43	SomeoneElse	Actually, https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18901
174005526 by 任东洋 @ 2025-10-31 06:31 Active block	1	2025-11-01 16:30	SomeoneElse	Hello, Can I explain what https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1381022484 is? Best Regards, Andy
173738357 by OpenWorldInformation @ 2025-10-24 23:35	1	2025-11-01 02:55	SomeoneElse	Not sure what happened to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1263414884/history - "roof:shape=gabled" seemed to get changed to "highway=gabled"?
	2	2025-11-01 11:41	OpenWorldInformation ♦1	Woops - my mistake. Resolved back in changeset 174057731
	3	2025-11-01 13:59	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
172587621 by rskedgell @ 2025-09-28 23:19	1	2025-11-01 02:37	SomeoneElse	Hello, Was the change of highway=crossing to link on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2371177121/history deliberate? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-01 02:38	SomeoneElse	Any idea what https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13179298428/history is? It does not seem connected to anything.
	3	2025-11-01 12:47	rskedgell ♦1,673	No, n2371177121 was unintentional, fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174060538
	4	2025-11-01 12:50	rskedgell ♦1,673	The unconnected crossing node looks like a fat-fingered copy and paste error, removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174060650
	5	2025-11-01 13:57	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
174063039 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2025-11-01 13:42	1	2025-11-01 13:46	SomeoneElse	All of the changesets reverted in here had imagery set to something like "Custom (https://service.spidersens.net:31303/hongjing_hongwei_2024_147/{z}/{x}/{y}.png )" See also subsequent changesets.
	2	2025-11-01 14:02	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 120738807, 120793240, 120840456, 120840534, 120973351, 120973677, 121397163, 121399036, 122369721, 122369787, 122369845, 123007084, 123049239, 123169904, 123173573, 123175614, 123223151, 123228804, 123540596, 123540703, 123541298, 123541672...
174052774 by jeslop @ 2025-11-01 09:41	1	2025-11-01 12:21	SomeoneElse	For info: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18898 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18897
170438586 by mattfry @ 2025-08-14 13:55	1	2025-11-01 03:03	SomeoneElse	I've made this a highway=track and aligned it with the imagery a bit.
173498521 by craghead @ 2025-10-19 15:43	1	2025-11-01 02:41	SomeoneElse	IS https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1443248508#map=20/52.5705434/-9.3634321 maybe a track or a service road? Cheers, Andy
171668723 by Omgitsme @ 2025-09-09 07:04	1	2025-11-01 02:35	SomeoneElse	Hello, Based on this edit, I presume that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1379164265/history and https www.openstreetmap.org/way/1235594890 are now complete - but what sort of road are they? Best Regards, Andy
171495244 by w_morland @ 2025-09-05 12:05	1	2025-11-01 01:37	SomeoneElse	Hello, I've set https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12982948679/history back to highway=crossing since setting the node to highway=sidewalk was probably not intended I guess? Cheers, Andy
174043346 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-11-01 00:56	1	2025-11-01 01:00	SomeoneElse	Actually, news reports https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckvgwpdnk07o suggest it closed last year. That would explain the lack of branding! See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4430138 .
166557160 by rskedgell @ 2025-05-21 08:50	1	2025-10-31 21:54	SomeoneElse	I'm guessing that "crossing:signals=Tufnell Park" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968619222 is a typo :)
	2	2025-11-01 12:44	rskedgell ♦1,673	Oh dear, that's embarrassing. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174060418
131853682 by The_JF @ 2023-01-29 20:19	1	2025-10-31 21:52	SomeoneElse	Hello, Should "spawrow" be "sparrow" on e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10592477255 ? Best Regards, Andy
172921318 by VLD318 @ 2025-10-06 15:38	1	2025-10-31 21:41	SomeoneElse	Hello, What is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1435936890 supposed to be? It has no "highway" tag but does have "footway=crossing" (but I'm not sure what that means). Any ideas? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-11-03 17:13	VLD318 ♦8	Hi SomeoneElse. Thank you for catching this mistake. I added the tag highway=footway to way 1435936890 in changeset 174157862.
173570817 by Lidon Group @ 2025-10-21 08:52	1	2025-10-29 21:37	SomeoneElse	Hello, I'm guessing that the "highway=#M7" is probably supposed to be some other tag? I'm not familiar with this sort of thing so alas I've no idea what that might be... Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-10-30 11:53	Lidon Group ♦1	Hi Andy Junction 14 is located off the M7 motorway, is this tag better? regards Rose #M7Motorway
	3	2025-10-30 12:08	SomeoneElse	A "highway" tag in OSM is supposed to have one of these values: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/highway#values . None of those are hashtags. Things processing OSM data tend to do spatial searches, so it'll be obvious to them that this fuel pump is within https://www.openstree...
	4	2025-10-30 12:23	Lidon Group ♦1	ok thanks this is all new to me, appreciate the feedback.
173821177 by Ediats @ 2025-10-27 05:42	1	2025-10-30 11:32	SomeoneElse	Hello Ediats, Someone has deleted the things that you added here because they say that they did not exist. They did that before, after they asked you about it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163509587 , but you did not reply. Best Regards, Andy
171027949 by GladGrip @ 2025-08-26 12:44 Active block	1	2025-10-28 21:24	SomeoneElse	You've added "branch=York Station Loc" to the Sainsbos here but that's clearly rubbish due to data corruption in whatever fed their website at their end!
173534457 by GladGrip @ 2025-10-20 12:33 Active block	1	2025-10-28 21:19	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've moved the tags for "The Range" from the wider area to the building, but the forgets that the garden centre to the south is also part of the shop. To fix it it's probably easiest just to revert your edit. Best Regards, Andy
173711856 by GladGrip @ 2025-10-24 10:57 Active block	1	2025-10-28 21:12	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've updated the brand and brand:wikidata on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3270271462/history from "Go Outdoors Express" to "Go Outdoors". This is definitely a "Go Outdoors Express" not a "Go Outdoors". Both (as the wikidata for each make...
171206719 by Selina576 @ 2025-08-29 23:16	1	2025-10-26 20:46	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for adding all this detail above Sowerby Bridge. Just one thing to have a look at though - for "separate sidewalks" to work for routing they'll need to connect up though, because routers aren't capable of "jumping gaps". You...
	2	2025-10-26 21:42	Selina576 ♦2	I'll be honest I didn't even know you could plot routes on here (still very new to the mapping thing). Guess I know what to work on next - thanks for your advice! - Isobel :)
173803996 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-10-26 16:52	1	2025-10-26 17:08	SomeoneElse	This is a Potlatch revisit of the iD editing done in 173756742 through 173759875. Everything in here was either not possible to do in iD or wasn't done because the track display in iD wasn't clear enough.
173643891 by Adam Edwards @ 2025-10-22 19:16	1	2025-10-25 12:04	SomeoneElse	Hello, NCN1 seems a bit odd at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15978999#map=19/52.962852/-0.021894 . It turns off the main road and then stops. There's a footpath that continues north, but that isn't tagged as allowing cycle access. Then the cycle route continues on the main roa...
	2	2025-10-25 13:02	Adam Edwards ♦17	Thanks for this. I think I have fixed them all. It now all joins up.
	3	2025-10-25 13:19	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
75587796 by MossWaffles @ 2019-10-11 22:43	1	2019-10-15 12:00	BCNorwich ♦5,007	A lot of the footpaths you have added along the east side of Kings Road are entirely fiction. I have previously removed these when I added the short service roads. You've also moved some of the remaining service roads and added fictional crossing points. Similarly on the north side of Wro...
	2	2025-10-24 12:47	SomeoneElse	Alas, talk of "fiction" here seems to have put this mapper off contributing - they made no more edits after this. I walked along Apperley Road last night and noticed some problems remain, such as you can see at https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&ro...
154735406 by alinratna @ 2024-08-02 12:49	1	2024-08-02 12:50	pitscheplatsch ♦5,697	Revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154734941
	2	2025-10-23 12:26	SomeoneElse	@pitscheplatsch what does "Revert of osm.org/changeset/154734941" mean? Both are changesets in iD by the same user.
	3	2025-10-23 12:53	pitscheplatsch ♦5,697	@SomeoneElse It means that the newer changeset essentially undid (reverted) the edits made in changeset 154734941. In other words, the user used iD to restore the data to how it was before that earlier edit. I’m not entirely sure anymore whether that actually reverted all of the changes, th...
	4	2025-10-23 13:19	SomeoneElse	@pitscheplatsch To be honest, in my 29th and 30th changesets I'm sure I was doing that too...
	5	2025-10-23 13:45	pitscheplatsch ♦5,697	@SomeoneElse I see, not sure I fully understood what you meant, could you clarify? The original edits caught my attention because they looked a bit unusual or suspicious, so I left a comment to make it clear for anyone else reviewing the changeset that it had been reverted. Of course, if you were...
	6	2025-10-24 12:14	SomeoneElse	> not sure I fully understood what you meant In my 29th and 30th changes is was still learning how to map things - "Is X better mapped as a Y or a Z": https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/26579848 . https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/719269 was my 30th chang...
162292814 by mikeho @ 2025-02-08 19:54	1	2025-06-28 13:06	os-emmer ♦347	Hallo mikeho, du hast hier Eisenbahnstrecken erfasst, die nicht mehr existieren und von denen nichts mehr sichtbar ist. Bitte unterlasse das. Das Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_historic_events_and_historic_features) verweist in dem Kontext auf die openhistroi...
	2	2025-06-29 19:20	mikeho ♦21	Hallo os-emmer, auf openrailwaymap.org werden nicht nur die heute genutzten Eisenbahnstrecken dargestellt, sondern auch die, die stillgelegt wurden (disused) oder sogar abgebaut wurden (abandoned). OpenRailwayMap zieht diese Daten aus dem aktiven Datenbestand von OSM. Nicht erfasste bzw. gel&...
	3	2025-06-29 20:28	os-emmer ♦347	Die Thematik/Diskussion zu ehemaligen Eisenbahnstrecken auch im Kontext mit ORM ist alt und wurde im Forum schon oft genug durchsikutiert, siehe z.B. hier: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/community-losung-fur-historische-eisenbahnstrecken-gesucht/130352/4. Objekte, die nicht (mehr) existier...
	4	2025-06-29 21:01	mikeho ♦21	Einige Hinweise: Das On the ground"-Prinzip von OSM ist gut für die erste Erfassung - hat jedoch seine Grenzen: z.B. Offnungszeiten von Geschäften, Telefonnummern, etc., die man eben nicht on-the-ground findet. ----------- Alles Historische kann gerne in OHM überführt wer...
	5	2025-10-23 13:10	SomeoneElse	Hello, Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. First things first, thanks to both of you for trying to have a sensible discussion here rather than than just reverting / unreverting. However, a couple of things need to be made clear. The first is that OpenStreetMap is a map of things that c...
	6	2025-10-23 13:10	SomeoneElse	Hallo, Hier ist Andy von der OSM-Datenarbeitsgruppe. Zunächst einmal vielen Dank an euch beide für euren Versuch, eine vernünftige Diskussion zu führen, anstatt einfach nur zurückzusetzen bzw. die Rücksetzung rückgängig zu machen. Ein paar Dinge müssen ...
173402413 by Peuxy @ 2025-10-17 10:00	1	2025-10-23 12:16	SomeoneElse	Hello, See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173539410 Best Regards, Andy
173539410 by archie @ 2025-10-20 14:15	1	2025-10-20 14:19	archie ♦1,356	Allt proposed: avseednde den inte befintliga spårvagnslinjen mellan Hisingen och Linnéplatsen via den inte befintliga tunneln under älven har raderats. Taggningen har genom återkommande cs byggts på med dels "construction"- dels "proposed"-taggar sam...
	2	2025-10-20 23:57	wombatmaper ♦85	Kommunens förslag verkar vara ett ganska bra bevis på att detta är planerat...
	3	2025-10-21 06:45	Peuxy ♦4	Vad är syftet med taggen proposed om den någonsin aldrig får användas enligt dig?
	4	2025-10-21 08:43	archie ♦1,356	Observera en sak. Det som jag raderade var inte bara sånt som var taggat "proposed:", utan även sånt som var taggat utan detta prefix som om det redan finns (tunnel, hållplatser, cutting m m), vilket alltså inte är fallet. När och om det finns ett po...
	5	2025-10-21 11:01	wombatmaper ♦85	Åtgärda sedan de element som saknar den föreslagna taggen, eller ta bort endast dem, inte de som är korrekt taggade. Du har också tagit bort mer än bara Lindholmsförbindelsen, utan även i Brunnsbo.
	6	2025-10-21 12:44	jphoenix11 ♦10	Den till Brunnsbo kan väl vara kvar då planeringen är mer konkret, men Lindholmsförbindelsen har inte kommit så långt i planprocessen så den anser jag bör tas bort. Främst eftersom att det inte finns någon detaljerad linjesträckning tillg&a...
	7	2025-10-21 14:06	wombatmaper ♦85	Jag håller med om Brunnsbo-linjen, men jag tror också att Lindholmsförbindelsen kan kartläggas. Även om den exakta sträckningen inte är fastställd tror jag att detta är tillräckligt för taggen ”planned”, eftersom denna tagg endast...
	8	2025-10-21 16:52	jphoenix11 ♦10	I min mening behöver det finnas både en avsikt och en plan. Just nu finns endast en avsikt, ingen plan (bara en plan för framställandet av en plan).
	9	2025-10-23 12:14	SomeoneElse	Were any of the following discussed with the wider Swedish community: 1) The original addition by a new mapper as their first changeset 6 days ago https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173402413 2) The deletion here 3) The revert of the deletion https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173577171...
	10	2025-10-23 12:14	SomeoneElse	Diskuterades något av följande med den bredare svenska gemenskapen: 1) Det ursprungliga tillägget av en ny kartläggare som deras första changeset för 6 dagar sedan https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173402413 2) Borttagningen här 3) Återställnin...
168057763 by MacLondon @ 2025-06-24 16:32	1	2025-10-16 14:04	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just wondered - do you know what the difference is between osm.org/relation/123318 and osm.org/relation/19284290 ? They both look like superroutes of NCN5, but with slightly different constituents? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-10-16 14:05	SomeoneElse	(for info see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172948051 , where someone from Sustrans was tidying these up).
	3	2025-10-16 23:00	MacLondon ♦224	Hi Andy, I've now removed the newer one of these 2 superroute relations.
	4	2025-10-17 01:27	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
154501906 by The_JF @ 2024-07-27 22:47	1	2025-10-17 01:23	SomeoneElse	I'm guessing that "Pudey" in some of these names should perhaps be "Pudsey"?
172948051 by Simon Sustrans @ 2025-10-07 08:49	1	2025-10-07 21:57	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just wondered - do you know what the difference is between https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/123318 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19284290 ? They both look like superroutes of NCN5, but with slightly different constituents? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-10-14 20:56	Simon Sustrans ♦6	Hi Andy, I can only see two relations - Starley Network and NCN5. I thought I had deleted the NCN relation that did not specify route number and replaced it with the NCN5 relation.
	3	2025-10-14 22:30	SomeoneElse	I've no idea what "Starley Network" is - can you link to it? What is the link to the NCN5 that you can see? In my comment above I've linked to two superroute relations that both claim to be NCN5, in this changeset you've modified both of those and a few routes that are c...
	4	2025-10-16 13:39	Simon Sustrans ♦6	Sorry Andy, I've reached the limit of my knowledge about relations and I don't know how to share the links. Full names of relations are [PROPOSED]Starley Regional Cycle Network and National Cycle Network Route 5. In hindsight, maybe I should have tried to edit the relation that did not hav...
	5	2025-10-16 13:53	SomeoneElse	If you search taginfo for a name of anything in OSM you'll be able to find it, so from https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Starley+Regional+Cycle+Network#values you can click through to https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/description=Starley%20(TfWM)%20Regional%20Cycle%20Network%20(Pr...
	6	2025-10-16 13:55	SomeoneElse	I have to say that https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17077005 looks like rubbish, because (a) it's proposed and does not exist yet, (b) it's a "collection" rather than an actual route and (c) it's added by mrpacmanmap, who is, ... not the most reliable contributor. So ...
	7	2025-10-16 14:01	SomeoneElse	Doing the same for "National Cycle Network Route 5" we get to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19284284 (you'll notice when you click something the URL bar changes). You can also see on that "browse" page that it says "Part of 1 relation Relation 5 (19284290) (as...
	8	2025-10-16 14:04	SomeoneElse	The "other" NCN5 superroute is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/123318 , and by the version number, that looks like the older one. I'll ask the person who created the duplicate if they're in the middle of tidying it up.
	9	2025-10-16 14:15	Simon Sustrans ♦6	Thanks, I've learned a lot, fascinating!
173242377 by Futurach01 @ 2025-10-13 18:31 Active block	1	2025-10-16 13:10	SomeoneElse	Please use better changeset comments. "À corriger " helps no-one. Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group
	2	2025-10-16 13:11	SomeoneElse	Veuillez utiliser de meilleurs commentaires sur les ensembles de modifications. « À corriger » ne sert à rien. Cordialement, Andy Townsend, au nom du groupe de travail sur les données d'OSM
171799189 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-09-11 18:52	1	2025-10-12 19:04	SomeoneElse	I suspect that "yes" makes no more sense than "3" here. I suspect that "bus_bay" is a typing error for another tag, perhaps "width"? The only way to be sure is to check with a local. When I see "obviously wrong values like "bus_bay=3" but can...
	2	2025-10-13 07:02	Flap Slimy Outward ♦140	I checked the history of the changed way, and it turns out that the street _does_ have a bus bay, and I used aerial imagery to determine which side(s) of it the bus bay is on.
	3	2025-10-15 22:03	SomeoneElse	The bus bay isn't all the way up the street though? Where did you see the bus bay?
	4	2025-10-16 03:22	Flap Slimy Outward ♦140	I looked at it more closely using Bing Maps, and I couldn't find one. As a result, I removed the tag entirely.
172166976 by camilleMa @ 2025-09-19 14:42	1	2025-10-05 21:33	Tallguy ♦23	Hi @camilleMa, could you have a look into this change please - you appear to have altered; Avenue Verte which should have the ref AV, extends between London & Paris, and be coloured green, and North Sea Cycle Route which should be reference EV12 and coloured red. In the UK this extends up...
	2	2025-10-06 13:18	Tallguy ♦23	Update on my comment - The North Sea Cycle route only passes into East & North London on its continued journey North. The Avenue Verte terminates at the London Eye in London.
	3	2025-10-06 21:55	SomeoneElse	I've changed the tags on these AV relations, so that https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2820043 is now AV and so is the AV superroute containing both parts, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2820053 . The EV12 superroute in the UK is entirely separate - see https://www.openstreetmap....
	4	2025-10-06 22:08	SomeoneElse	Bonjour @camillMa, La configuration de ces relations dans OpenStreetMap (à la fois « EV » et, dans une moindre mesure, « AV ») est un peu confuse. N'hésitez pas à nous contacter si vous avez des questions. En particulier, il es...
	5	2025-10-14 15:21	camilleMa ♦1	hello j'étais en congé et je ne vois vos messages qu'aujourd'hui. Je suis désolée, je me suis effectivement trompée entre l'EV12 et l'AV... dois je faire quelque chose pour reverter mes modif ? comment dois je faire ?
	6	2025-10-14 17:22	SomeoneElse	No problem - I think I've corrected the problems earlier
	7	2025-10-14 17:23	SomeoneElse	Pas de problème, je pense avoir corrigé les problèmes plus tôt
143690544 by happymapper @ 2023-11-06 12:03 Active block	1	2025-10-12 21:22	SomeoneElse	I'd definitely suggest adding "designation=core_path" where relevant, as per https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/designation=core_path .
173115545 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-10-10 22:45	1	2025-10-11 23:24	SomeoneElse	I don't know if you're crazy, but clearly you are incapable of understanding what people say to you in plain English. In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170858581 I said: "Whenever you're thinking about making significant changes like this it's always a good idea t...
	2	2025-10-11 23:26	SomeoneElse	For now, please consider restricting yourself to edits that you have surveyed yourself in your own local town. If we get further complaints we'll have to consider taking further action.
	3	2025-10-12 17:28	Flap Slimy Outward ♦140	Okay. Then explain the fixme requests that I tried to, you know, fix? (I feel like it can't be both ways.)
	4	2025-10-12 17:53	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	English is actually more popular. If you count solely native speakers maybe your claim is more true
	5	2025-10-13 07:00	Flap Slimy Outward ♦140	I counted speakers in geographically-defined Europe. This means I included speakers of Russian in European Russia but excluded English speakers in the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Oceania (since they're not part of Europe). Under THAT metric, there are more Russian speakers, since Russia (even o...
	6	2025-10-13 08:58	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	> European countries that speak English there are English-language speakers (as learned language) outside this countries, far more than Russian-language speakers (as learned language)
	7	2025-10-13 09:27	ManuelB701 ♦240	Great! Now count the amount of ESL speakers and compare THESE to people who know Russian (first AND secondary lang) in Europe.
	8	2025-10-13 15:33	Flap Slimy Outward ♦140	"there are English-language speakers (as learned language) outside this countries, far more than Russian-language speakers (as learned language)" How many of these L2 English speakers reside INSIDE Europe, but OUTSIDE of the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta? "Now count the amount of...
	9	2025-10-14 08:03	☆Finvenkulo ♦92	EO Eŭropo ne estas nurangla, sed PLURLINGVA. Do la nomo estu en pluraj lingvoj: angla, germana, pola, rusa… PL Europa nie jest tylko anglojęzyczna, ale wielojęzyczna. Więc nazwa powinna być w wielu językach: angielskim, niemieckim, polskim, rosyjskim… EN Europe is not En...
	10	2025-10-14 14:45	Flap Slimy Outward ♦140	I would do that, if not for the fact that names have a character limit (I read that from somewhere on the wiki).
	11	2025-10-14 17:20	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	> How many of these L2 English speakers reside INSIDE Europe, but OUTSIDE of the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta? enough to offset difference of ru having more native speakers if you think otherwise, please share your statistics
	12	2025-10-14 17:29	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	> How could we count these L1+2 Russian and English speakers? good starting point would be checking when English/Russian was taught in schools and how many people are alive from that years it will overestimate prevalence of Russian (many people in Russia-occupied countries were quite delibe...
173023412 by VLD318 @ 2025-10-08 20:56	1	2025-10-09 00:09	SomeoneElse	Just for info - this edit is being discussed in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/separate-sidewalks-or-not-near-ealing/132613/183 - you might want to pop in and say hi!
	2	2025-10-10 17:45	VLD318 ♦8	Hello SomeoneElse, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. I’ve reverted my changeset to restore the footway to its previous version. Thanks, Owen / VLD318
	3	2025-10-11 12:40	SomeoneElse	Thanks, The conversations about this sort of mapping are still ongoing; it's definitely worth having a look in the forum. Cheers, Andy
173106118 by Boggedy @ 2025-10-10 17:29	1	2025-10-11 10:57	SomeoneElse	For info this broke a couple of relations - I've fixed the ones I've found in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173131453
173046307 by Chanbasha2 @ 2025-10-09 11:42	1	2025-10-10 11:25	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I've just noticed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1436669796 - does it actually match what is actually on the ground here? It does not look like it from the imagery. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-10-19 10:03	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 173483123 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unlikely 'grassland' in India by a one-day-only mapper
173069694 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-10-09 21:52	1	2025-10-09 22:06	SomeoneElse	Actually a few trees, and some hedges in Towthorpe
171841543 by ramthelinefeed @ 2025-09-12 16:41	1	2025-10-09 15:55	SomeoneElse	Just wondered - what is the difference between https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1015887 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15481627 ? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-10-09 16:13	ramthelinefeed ♦68	There's a bit of a nesting problem with these: originally (1970s) the Ulster Way was a continuous waymarked hiking route the whole way round Northern Ireland. But it kinda fell to bits, and in the 'noughties, they rejigged it as a series of a dozen or so disconnected off-road hiking route...
	3	2025-10-09 16:17	ramthelinefeed ♦68	*nest them. However the snag is that several of the component segments have extra waymarked bits which aren't part of the Ulster Way. Hence things like the Newry Canal Way and the Lecale Way have ended up as a pair of relations, one with the suffix "(Ulster Way section)" and the o...
	4	2025-10-09 16:19	ramthelinefeed ♦68	It would probably be less problematic just to have Ulster Way as a separate relation, rather than a parent of all the segments. And so a bit of the Newry Canal Way which was also part of the Ulster Way would have a tag for each.
	5	2025-10-09 16:20	ramthelinefeed ♦68	I would not relish manually retagging all that in ID though :)
	6	2025-10-09 16:54	SomeoneElse	What tends to happen elsewhere is that you'd have a superroute for the "named route" (see for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16327216 ) which has only relations as components - in my example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/78028 (which is also a member of a Euro...
133139326 by b-unicycling @ 2023-02-28 17:41	1	2025-10-09 14:37	SomeoneElse	Hello, https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/15543659 is both "network=nwn" and "network:type=lwn". It looks pretty "local" to me; is there anything that I am missing? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-10-12 10:05	b-unicycling ♦256	The purple arrows are apparently used as part of a national network of loops. Make of that what you will.
167577025 by Loshu @ 2025-06-13 13:55	1	2025-10-09 13:52	SomeoneElse	Hello, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1394995446/history seems to be tagged as a "community_centre=community_hall" which seems odd? Regards, Andy
172357873 by CanopyFalls @ 2025-09-23 18:14	1	2025-09-25 20:23	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like the edit to https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/40971828 that removed https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/385557097 from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40971828 introduced a gap in NCN67 at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/357215#map=20/53.3559866/-1.3857217&layers=H ...
	2	2025-10-08 05:01	CanopyFalls ♦26	Hello Andy! Thank you for catching this! I think I got distracted midway through adding pavement here. I've connected this up and added a marked crossing further down the road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172985323 I want to survey this area more on foot and upload imagery to M...
	3	2025-10-09 00:14	SomeoneElse	Well if there's a kerb on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1435651892 that's worth mapping. I've connected the relation up https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/357215#map=19/53.356102/-1.386084 - if someone was cycling northe or south along that I'm guessing that they'd ...
	4	2025-10-09 00:39	CanopyFalls ♦26	That would be my guess. These cycle routes like NCN67 seem a little pointless. They often just kick cyclists out into roads with little to no notice and I don't know if it's worth actually keeping them mapped. This one here doesn't even have a lowered kerb for cyclists if memory serve...
172975342 by OSM Warrior @ 2025-10-07 19:41	1	2025-10-08 23:53	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
172900233 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-10-06 08:10	1	2025-10-07 21:22	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
172841058 by nixon21 @ 2025-10-04 17:57	1	2025-10-04 18:06	Bastian Greshake Tzovaras ♦8	As suggested in previously reverted Changesets: Please refer to the following wiki page for more information. https://osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F Further relevant information can be found in: - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F#OSM_is_a_map...
	2	2025-10-05 15:59	SomeoneElse	Hello nixon21, You can see that this object has flip-flopped between an informal trail and not existing at all over several iterations: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1433088186/history . This approach really does not help anyone. In particular, deleting something that DOES exist but shouldn&#...
172744881 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-10-02 11:32	1	2025-10-03 16:23	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like this might have introduced a gap in the causeway coast way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1085994#map=19/55.237231/-6.428812 Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-10-06 08:12	NTTrailsMEE ♦3	Hi Andy, again I'm not sure why this has happened as the gap has appeared in a section I was not working on but have fixed it now. Thanks
172486209 by CaptainCarte @ 2025-09-26 13:31	1	2025-10-03 13:00	SomeoneElse	It'd need a survey to check, but do you think that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12520085221/history should be tagged as anything? spillway? outlet? The imagery is unclear.
	2	2025-10-13 14:54	CaptainCarte ♦18	Well, the in/out Nodes could be tagged with inlet/outlet. I'm not really sure if it is a spillway in the first place or just a constant drain (altough the definitionbetween those are a bit flexible)
153163320 by carlwev @ 2024-06-25 15:41	1	2025-09-29 21:48	SomeoneElse	Hello, The Wash already exists as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9818241 - is there any difference between that and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1296077965 here? Best Regards, Andy
171453477 by dsfarc @ 2025-09-04 13:29	1	2025-09-28 11:20	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've deleted the fence at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/694057190/history , but it still seems to be visible on aerial imagery. Has it actually been removed on the ground since the last aerial imagery was taken? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-09-28 12:06	dsfarc ♦1	Hi Andy, You're right, after looking at it again I should indeed not have removed the fence. Apologies, I was looking at the ESRI imagery on which it is barely distinguishable.
	3	2025-09-28 16:22	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I've undeleted it and aligned it with imagery in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172574575 .
172396156 by CaptainCarte @ 2025-09-24 14:02	1	2025-09-28 12:19	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've changed the tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/949631071/history , the spillway adjacent to this hydro power station in Derby from "waterway=spillway" to "layer=-1;tunnel=culvert;usage=spillway;waterway=drain". I don't recall this has being underg...
	2	2025-09-28 13:32	SomeoneElse	See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/automated-edit-of-waterway-spillway-and-man-made-spillway/136178
	3	2025-09-28 19:17	CaptainCarte ♦18	fixed the underground part
172490354 by CaptainCarte @ 2025-09-26 15:04	1	2025-09-28 12:44	SomeoneElse	I don't remember mapping this one, but suspect that "usage=spillway" here is incorrect - it's a fish ladder. Correct here would have been to do what you did at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374759289#map=20/54.0337748/-1.2382691&layers=H and remove "usage" and ...
172395954 by CaptainCarte @ 2025-09-24 13:58	1	2025-09-28 11:46	SomeoneElse	Hello, This looks like a mechanical edit, and if so, should have followed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct . I don't remember seeing any discussion that said that you were going to do this. This is relevant because there are data consumers of this tag https...
	2	2025-09-28 19:02	CaptainCarte ♦18	I don't do mechanical edits. I made this and every other change manually.
172508645 by Chris Denomy @ 2025-09-27 02:43	1	2025-09-28 11:32	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like this edit or an earlier one introduced a gap in the Saxon Shore Way - https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2cAp shows how it was a couple of days ago. Using the previous OSM data and the LA rights-of-way data https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.27479/1.36797/H/P I'...
172537015 by HoubkneghteS @ 2025-09-27 17:44	1	2025-09-27 17:58	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
172312228 by Toygar Alak @ 2025-09-22 19:25	1	2025-09-25 23:56	SomeoneElse	Hello Toygar Alak, Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. All of your changesets seem to have the comment "Çok önemli bir yer". Surely not every place can be important? :) Have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments . Best Regards, And...
	2	2025-09-25 23:56	SomeoneElse	Merhaba Toygar Alak, OSM Veri Çalışma Grubu'ndan Andy. Tüm değişiklik setlerinizde "Çok önemli bir yer" yorumu var gibi görünüyor. Her yer önemli olamaz herhalde? :) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments adresine ...
172450064 by ばみっと @ 2025-09-25 17:09	1	2025-09-25 23:27	SomeoneElse	Hello, please don't add things to OpenStreetMap that no longer exist (the English translation of the comment here includes " Lines for bridges and roadbeds that are no longer visible". This has been mentioned before - see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=23...
	2	2025-09-25 23:27	SomeoneElse	こんにちは。OpenStreetMapに存在しないものを追加しないでください（このコメントの英語訳には「表示されなくなった橋梁や路盤の線」が含まれています）。これは以前にも言及されています。https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-dis...
	3	2025-09-26 00:28	ばみっと ♦1	前回は現認できない構造物も追加してしまいましたが、今回は現認できる構造物のみ追加しました。元々登録されている構造物で現認できない構造物は元の編集者を尊重して削除せず、各構造物にコメントを残しています�...
172418737 by crowntina @ 2025-09-25 03:00	1	2025-09-25 22:11	SomeoneElse	Hello crowntina and welcome to OpenStreetMap! You've added a couple of odd things in your first and only changeset so far: http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=172418737 . OpenStreetMap is for mapping things that actually exist; perhaps you could explain the significance of "no...
172239041 by gomedia91 @ 2025-09-21 10:49	1	2025-09-24 22:32	SomeoneElse	There's a bug in iD that can encourage you to add ways to superrelations (here https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5487294) rather than the local relation (here https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5487293). The other issue from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172178406 is still a...
172319523 by gogorm @ 2025-09-23 00:22	1	2025-09-24 22:17	SomeoneElse	It looks like one of the node drags here made a dozen or so relations invalid, including "10709165 \| Monkstown Parish". I've dragged that back in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172414229 so that the relation is now https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10709165#map=19/53.25...
	2	2025-09-24 23:07	gogorm ♦33	Sorry for causing this problem and thanks for fixing it. Thanks also for the detailed explanation and guide, I'll make use of that validator from now on.
172178406 by gomedia91 @ 2025-09-19 18:56	1	2025-09-21 10:14	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think that something has gone a bit wrong here. There seems to be no way to get from one side of Ty Mawr Road to the other. Imagine you're following the Cambrian Way long distance path https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11661295#map=20/51.5121149/-3.2373653 - you'll see a g...
171606276 by IamMiti @ 2025-09-07 21:34	1	2025-09-20 11:39	SomeoneElse	Are you seriously suggesting that the patch of grass https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/587923070/history was named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adem_Jashari ? Do you have any evidence for that?
171550878 by Jyunhou @ 2025-09-06 16:44	1	2025-09-19 23:02	SomeoneElse	Hello, Back in April https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/733274217/history#map=17/21.983757/108.495998 was a large power station https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bZb . You changed it into a house and then deleted it. Can you explain what has happened here? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-09-19 23:03	SomeoneElse	您好，四月的時候，https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/733274217/history#map=17/21.983757/108.495998 是一座大型發電廠 https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bZb。您把它改成了房子，然後又把它刪除了。您能解釋一下發生了什麼事嗎？此致敬禮，安迪
172057056 by karf101 @ 2025-09-17 10:34	1	2025-09-17 18:47	SomeoneElse	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
	2	2025-09-18 08:51	karf101 ♦3	Hi Andy, Those bits should now be fixed, thank you for raising Best, Arthur
	3	2025-09-18 15:54	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
172033429 by Gilbert84 @ 2025-09-16 20:10	1	2025-09-17 17:37	SomeoneElse	Hello, You don't need to add "this small rock as an "outer" of the Spain boundary because it is well within Spanish territorial waters - see the big line here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1311341#map=11/36.6318/-3.4734 Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-09-17 17:37	SomeoneElse	Hola, No es necesario añadir "esta pequeña roca" como "exterior" de la frontera con España, ya que se encuentra dentro de las aguas territoriales españolas. Vea la línea grande aquí: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1311341#map=11...
147223485 by NTAshridgeEstatePaths @ 2024-02-08 15:53	1	2024-04-25 16:54	Mikey Co ♦29	Why have these paths been removed? I walked them in January, and they were clearly signed as permissive footpaths.
	2	2025-09-04 08:10	rskedgell ♦1,673	Also, please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
	3	2025-09-14 23:50	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've deleted paths such as https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bEN here. It is still somewhat visible in imagery, so if you want to prevent anyone re-adding it I strongly recommend that you ensure that it remains in OSM either with access tags saying "this is a private path" or lif...
	4	2025-09-14 23:55	SomeoneElse	@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 click "comment"). In particular, the ques...
148160630 by NTAshridgeEstatePaths @ 2024-03-03 10:53	1	2024-04-25 16:56	Mikey Co ♦29	Ditto there was a permissive path here, why has that been removed?
	2	2025-09-04 08:09	rskedgell ♦1,673	Also, not your decision to make. Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
	3	2025-09-14 23:47	SomeoneElse	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 strongly recommend that you ensure that it remains in OSM ...
171412997 by NTAshridgeEstatePaths @ 2025-09-03 15:20	1	2025-09-04 08:00	rskedgell ♦1,673	The problem with deleting these instead of using appropriate access tags is that they're visible on aerial imagery and likely to be re-added without any access restrictions or other information. If you have a desire line path which is visible on aerial imagery on National Trust land where yo...
	2	2025-09-14 23:14	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 171939901 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some edits due to misunderstandings about how public rights of way work in England+Wales, and also some that will have entirely the wrong effect. Please see https://osm.org/changeset/1...
	3	2025-09-14 23:38	SomeoneElse	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 foot=private to each since presumably that is what you...
167225787 by NTAshridgeEstatePaths @ 2025-06-05 14:23	1	2025-09-04 08:07	rskedgell ♦1,673	Before you consider deleting anything, please read: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
	2	2025-09-14 23:14	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 171939901 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some edits due to misunderstandings about how public rights of way work in England+Wales, and also some that will have entirely the wrong effect. Please see https://osm.org/changeset/1...
	3	2025-09-14 23:33	SomeoneElse	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 will not add access tags.
167225932 by NTAshridgeEstatePaths @ 2025-06-05 14:26	1	2025-09-04 08:07	rskedgell ♦1,673	This is tagged as a public right of way (Nettleden with Potten End FP 16), so it's hardly a desire line path. If it's not a PRoW and the line of the PRoW is elsewhere, it would be helpful if your changeset comment actually described the problem and what you've done. I assume tha...
	2	2025-09-14 23:14	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 171939901 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some edits due to misunderstandings about how public rights of way work in England+Wales, and also some that will have entirely the wrong effect. Please see https://osm.org/changeset/1...
	3	2025-09-14 23:30	SomeoneElse	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 authority please do ensure that the new route is added and ta...
171412889 by NTAshridgeEstatePaths @ 2025-09-03 15:17	1	2025-09-03 17:00	rskedgell ♦1,673	What you've deleted here is a public right of way, part of Ivinghoe Footpath 27. If the PRoW tags were applied to the wrong path, it would help if they were applied to the right path. This may help, although I'm sure NT has access to better information about PRoWs which cross its land:\...
	2	2025-09-04 08:22	rskedgell ♦1,673	I also note that you've deleted a section of the Ridgeway National Trail with this edit.
	3	2025-09-14 23:14	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 171939901 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some edits due to misunderstandings about how public rights of way work in England+Wales, and also some that will have entirely the wrong effect. Please see https://osm.org/changeset/1...
	4	2025-09-14 23:26	SomeoneElse	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 are created using local authority data - they are wh...
171409267 by The Vyne @ 2025-09-03 13:51	1	2025-09-03 16:40	rskedgell ♦1,673	Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately, deleting the highway=path tags here leaves data consumers with access permissions attached to nothing. You'll notice that they've completely disappeared from the map following your edit(s). If it's a permissive footpath and isn't use...
	2	2025-09-04 13:46	rskedgell ♦1,673	Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171454189
	3	2025-09-08 08:21	The Vyne ♦2	I was trying to make it clear that the footpaths are permissive, not public, as we've seen an increase in antisocial behaviour and people accessing the area within the pay barrier and private staff areas, without paying (runners and cyclists) as they have been appearing on third party sites and...
	4	2025-09-14 22:34	SomeoneElse	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) would be "yes" or similar. "permissi...
171858285 by Thermostopqc @ 2025-09-13 04:09	1	2025-09-13 11:32	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 171870886 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a faux pas in first changeset; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171858285
	2	2025-09-13 11:37	SomeoneElse	Hello and Welcome to OpenStreetMap! I think something went a bit wrong here - you accidentally changed the whole industrial area as a shop. Please try again, and just add a point where your premises are. Also, I'd suggest that you don't use a spammy description when you add it, as peopl...
	3	2025-10-09 23:33	TagaSanPedroAko ♦529	(machine translation into French/traduction automatique en français) Bonjour et bienvenue sur OpenStreetMap ! Je pense qu'il y a eu un problème : vous avez accidentellement transformé toute la zone industrielle en magasin. Veuillez réessayer et ajouter...
145813242 by JamJar II @ 2024-01-02 20:11	1	2025-09-05 18:57	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello, If https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/233317913/history has a sidewalk on both sides the normal tag for that would be something like "sidewalk=both". "footway=sidewalk" notmally means "this is actually a footway of some other road". Would it be OK to change thi...
	2	2025-09-08 16:42	JamJar II ♦17	Hi Andy, In that case it should be "sidewalk=-left" as there is only a sidewalk on the North side adjacent to the static caravan park boundary wall. Cheers, James
	3	2025-09-08 16:44	JamJar II ♦17	Hmm. Already has "sidewalk=left". What would you recommend?
	4	2025-09-12 15:48	SomeoneElse	Ha - so it does (I didn't spot that). I'd just remove the "footway=sidewalk" altogether.
171834477 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-09-12 14:03	1	2025-09-12 14:07	SomeoneElse	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
171807987 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-09-12 01:12	1	2025-09-12 01:22	SomeoneElse	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 .
167259600 by AH9999 @ 2025-06-06 10:27	1	2025-09-06 12:49	SomeoneElse	Hello, What was the source of the change here? The "imagery used" on the changeset was Bing Maps Aerial; were you able to use that as a source? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-09-09 09:50	AH9999 ♦3	Hi, yes on streetview you can see the changes match now as were previously incorrect
	3	2025-09-09 18:29	SomeoneElse	Unfortunately, we can't use Google Streetview for licensing reasons (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google ), and any data added as a result of that will need to be reverted and redacted. Was that the source that you used for the change here?
171401650 by Dafo43 @ 2025-09-03 11:04	1	2025-09-05 16:28	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello, Along with quite a few other relations, https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/2267444 seems to have been broken by your edits in the last day or so. Previously it looked like this: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2beU and now it looks like this: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2beW An easy way...
	2	2025-09-05 18:43	Dafo43 ♦35	Thanks, the problem is that there is an issue with nearly every townland in Carlow, so this has meant extensive edits were needed. While I check each townland after an edit, checking all the various other divisions is more difficult due to their size (Potlatch can only really cover close in zooms). ...
	3	2025-09-07 18:56	Dafo43 ♦35	Can you tell me what the Overpass command was? The 2 links give a 503 error.
	4	2025-09-07 20:05	SomeoneElse	That's a (hopefully short term) problem with overpass: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/overpass-turbo-link-shortening-kaput/135306 . The query will have looked something like: [date:"2025-09-05T00:00:00Z"]; relation(2267444); out geom;
130824718 by wheelmap_visitor @ 2023-01-03 12:31	1	2025-08-30 15:27	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just wondered where the wheelchair tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/735945109/history came from? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-09-01 06:09	isi17 ♦7	Hi Andy, it seems like someone tagged this place on Wheelmap.org two years ago. We are a community based map, so if this should be wrong, please change the tag. More infos here: https://news.wheelmap.org/en/faq/ Thank you!
	3	2025-09-01 13:42	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I've already changed it in line with what I saw, but was just wondering what the original source was? Was there perhaps a side entrance without a step that I had missed?
	4	2025-09-02 13:08	isi17 ♦7	Our guidelines on Wheelmap are: wheelchair=yes is no step wheelchair=limited is step > 7cm wheelchair=no is step < 7cm, high or more than one step Our community tags places according to this guideline. Sometimes they don´t match (because the place changed or they simply made a mi...
	5	2025-09-02 14:17	SomeoneElse	One thing that would be really helpful would be if you could also encourage the capture of "wheelchair:description" too (it's easy to miss things like "main entrance has two steps, but there is step-free access via the car park")
171217725 by thetornado76 @ 2025-08-30 09:26	1	2025-08-31 12:37	SomeoneElse	1) "wiki" is not a source. 2) If you're going to fiddle with values in OSM please try and contact data consumers first.
	2	2025-08-31 18:59	thetornado76 ♦172	Why shouldn't the wiki be a source for corrections for tags? Where else does it say which tags and keys are used? Which data consumer could you contact if a tag is used once worldwide? ;-)
	3	2025-09-01 13:49	SomeoneElse	> Where else does it say which tags and keys are used? Taginfo > Which data consumer could you contact if a tag is used once worldwide? ;-) The ones listed at taginfo :) Yes, in this case usage has been largely historic and going down because people have been updating old nodes, b...
161983646 by VLD292 @ 2025-01-31 16:28	1	2025-08-31 21:39	SomeoneElse	(for the benefit of anyone looking at edits by this Facebook mapper): There's some "unclear sourcing" at the very least in there - for example, osm.org/way/1355696177 has added "surface=paving_stones" with "source=Bing", but a glance at the Bing imagery in iD show...
161983054 by VLD292 @ 2025-01-31 16:12	1	2025-03-13 11:44	tomhukins ♦245	Are you sure this change makes sense? You appear to have connected the pedestrian area outside Piccadilly station to the sidewalk that runs alongside Store Street underneath. There is no way these two routes are connected: making wildly incorrect changes like this is incredibly unhelpful, and ...
	2	2025-03-14 15:54	VLD292 ♦4	Hello Tomhukins, The connecting pathway you mentioned was created after the separation of another path (w1345994827), which was previously linked in changeset 160576889. Our objective in this case was to resolve crossing pathways and to introduce pedestrian crossings that had not yet been added. ...
	3	2025-03-21 12:08	tomhukins ♦245	I see no evidence that you have understood or fixed the problem I described. I strongly encourage Meta / Facebook to stop clumsily editing the map in parts of the word that you have no knowledge of and do not understand. I will tidy up the mess you made myself in due course.
	4	2025-08-20 16:22	rskedgell ♦1,673	I have deleted these useless sidewalks. As a pedestrian, I find it terribly inconvenient to move 5 metres vertically between footways, even when there isn't solid concrete inbetween. I have deleted this useless and irresponsible fiction. The mapping of pedestrian infrastructure in OSM is act...
	5	2025-08-20 16:24	rskedgell ♦1,673	(User reported to DWG)
	6	2025-08-20 18:55	tomhukins ♦245	Thank you, rskedgell. It's great to see you looking after the map, unlike the clumsy Meta / Facebook employees who don't seem to care.
	7	2025-08-20 19:27	RVR015 ♦24	Thank you for this update, rskedgell. Our team is reviewing the complete edit history. The reported account is archived, but I'm more than happy to correspond with DWG as needed. We appreciate your local expertise. Thank you for extending your time and contributions to OSM.
	8	2025-08-21 09:29	rskedgell ♦1,673	I'm actually based in London rather than Manchester, but stayed there last weekend. I noticed some unusual behaviour planning running routes and while using StreetComplete/SCEE and decided to take a closer look. In the last year, there was a Map with AI project using a task manager to add pe...
	9	2025-08-31 21:37	SomeoneElse	In order to help tidy some of this stuff up, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2aUO is a query for nodes and ways last edited by @VLD292 in Northern England, and https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2aUP is the Southeast. There's some "unclear sourcing" at the very least in there - for example, htt...
	10	2025-09-02 20:09	RVR015 ♦24	Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The way mentioned is adjacent to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/662332132/history/2, which is also surface=paving_stones tagged by another user. As well as this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024398493/history/2. More than likely, VLD292 was ...
162613996 by Sforzando9500 @ 2025-02-17 13:56	1	2025-02-28 10:03	ntzm ♦42	What's the reason for this change? See discussion here for the previous time this was done https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123562235
	2	2025-02-28 10:21	Sforzando9500 ♦9	Oh I see - I didn't realise this. Is there an easy way to revert the whole changeset? I don't think there were any other changes mixed in. I suppose I might have increased the accuracy of some of the paths.
	3	2025-08-25 18:30	SomeoneElse	It is possible to revert a whole changeset, but it might be easier just to remove the names where they've been added. I'll have a go at doing that. That way, the 626 node changes won't get backed out too. Best Regards, Andy
	4	2025-08-30 18:51	SomeoneElse	I've removed the name from relation members (and some outliers) in a series of changes from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171240691 to 171241261. In a couple of places the added names here didn't match the route that OSM had. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/17124126...
171010557 by ns130291 @ 2025-08-26 06:56	1	2025-08-26 16:05	SomeoneElse	Hello, What does the changeset comment "approved AI buildings" mean? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-08-26 20:32	ns130291 ♦2	Hi Andy, this means I used the Rapid Editor https://rapideditor.org/ to view and approve building outlines from Microsoft Bing Building Footprint Dataset https://github.com/microsoft/GlobalMLBuildingFootprints (and adjusted them where needed, e.g. rotation or additional points)
	3	2025-08-26 21:41	SomeoneElse	Ah - thanks!
171050641 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-08-26 20:56	1	2025-08-26 20:57	SomeoneElse	https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13099017794 has no NCN number on it.
171050361 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-08-26 20:48	1	2025-08-26 20:48	SomeoneElse	However, someone's attempt to remove the signage pointing northeast at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10863834705 has been only partially successful.
169330383 by James McGurk - Glen Coe NNR Ranger @ 2025-07-23 08:41	1	2025-08-03 14:34	SomeoneElse	Hello James, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. This change has been flagged to us because it has a lot of deletions in it. After looking at it, I'm worried that some of the changes here will have the opposite effect to the one that you desire. An ex...
	2	2025-08-04 10:43	James McGurk - Glen Coe NNR Ranger ♦1	Hi Andy and thanks for your comments. I'll open a discussion on that forum. When you mention that paths could show up in hiking apps designed for regular tourists, unfortunately that's already happening even with the "demanding alpine hiking" tags, which is why I made these...
	3	2025-08-04 17:51	SomeoneElse	Hello, > everything marked as being accessible by foot seems to be showing up looking like a regular footpath on apps On which apps are you seeing problematical data displayed? It'd be great to have more details so that we can investigate. > I heard back from one app saying th...
	4	2025-08-05 08:30	James McGurk - Glen Coe NNR Ranger ♦1	Hi Andy, Probably a good discussion to have by email, mine beingjmcgurk@nts.org.ukand I'll copy in a colleague too. And I'd better clarify, the comment that they said they didn't think it was their responsibility is very much me paraphrasing and possibly putting in stronger terms ...
	5	2025-08-14 11:53	SomeoneElse	Hi Jim, Any more thoughts? You have an email from the DWG (sent 06/08/2025 11:18) - just reply to that and it'll go on the ticket. We do need to do something here to guard against someone re-adding without difficulty information. Best Regards, Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)
	6	2025-08-25 19:12	SomeoneElse	Hello, I've edited the southeast change in here in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170993268 . The key changes were: 1) ensure that the actual OSM ways (with e.g. sac_scale) were restored, so that everyone can see that they are not "regular paths". 2) ensure that they were...
	7	2025-08-25 19:22	SomeoneElse	... and the northwest change I've done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170994103 . I've explicitly added that back as "not a path", to stop someone adding it from imagery (where it is still somewhat visible) or GPS traces.
170949466 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-08-24 23:37	1	2025-08-24 23:38	SomeoneElse	Brighouse, from survey, 11/07/2025
170696838 by mod22 @ 2025-08-20 01:09	1	2025-08-20 18:45	MCDA ♦114	Improving Nominatim results for who exactly? I am proud of my County and it is included in my address. Most businesses use them too. https://www.bankofireland.com/branch-locator/enniskillen/ https://www.axani.co.uk/insurance/branches/fermanagh/enniskillen/ https://www.dunnesstores.com/store...
	2	2025-08-20 22:45	mod22 ♦5	The counties were tagged with boundary=historic and Wikipedia mentions they were abolished at some point, so I assumed they were no longer in use. If as you say they are indeed used in practice, then it seems that the boundary=historic tag is incorrect. It sounds like boundary=place would be more ap...
	3	2025-08-21 11:13	MCDA ♦114	There are people in our Government would love to make our counties and townlands historic. I've been at many meetings to campaign to protect our townlands, it has also been written into local law. However, we keep getting organisations like NISRA who when taking the last census, decided to dr...
	4	2025-08-22 11:47	mod22 ♦5	Yes, like I wrote in the previous comment, if the counties are still used in practice by local communities, then boundary=historic sounds wrong. That being said, the tag was not introduced in this changeset. I think the best way to proceed is to take the matter to the relevant OSM communities, discu...
	5	2025-08-22 13:07	SomeoneElse	Re "the best way to proceed is to take the matter to the relevant OSM communities" it's normally good practice to do that _before_ making changes such as this (and that applies anywhere in the world). There are all sorts of edge cases out there.
	6	2025-08-22 18:49	MCDA ♦114	boundary=historic didn't affect the Nominatim addresses, and your change-set was labelled "Remove place=county from historic counties in Northern Ireland, improving Nominatim results". I just question your logic/reasoning of removing tags from boundaries, without asking or discussing...
	7	2025-08-23 13:50	mod22 ♦5	Well, yes, in general I don't hesitate to contact the community if there is some ambiguity. But in this case to me the edit was clear: The boundaries were consistently tagged as historic (so no longer in use) and that agreed with the information to be found on Wikipedia saying they had been abo...
	8	2025-08-23 21:28	MCDA ♦114	If you are interested in fixing Nominatim address, why is it displaying "Fermanagh and Omagh District" as part of our addresses in Fermanagh? Fermanagh and Omagh District Council is the local council, but never used in our address! Royal Mail recommend putting the postal town in the ad...
	9	2025-08-23 21:30	MCDA ♦114	Even the Council put the County in their address, see - https://www.fermanaghomagh.com/get-in-touch/ bottom of page.
	10	2025-08-24 10:01	lonvia ♦39	> In my case the app I help maintain relies on the full administrative boundary hierarchy that it delivers. If that is the reason for the change, then you should adapt your app to get along with the data as mapped in OSM, not the other way around. My comment in https://github.com/osm-search/No...
	11	2025-08-24 16:05	ramthelinefeed ♦68	I think this change was misguided and should be reverted. Counties Down, Antrim, Armagh, Fermanagh, Derrylondon & Tyrone are most definitely counties, and should remain tagged as such, 'place=county'. It is true that (since 1972) they are little used for administrative purposes (no...
	12	2025-08-24 19:28	mod22 ♦5	>If that is the reason for the change, then you should adapt your app to get along with the data as mapped in OSM, not the other way around. Sure, this approach is more than routine to us by now. That being said, if we detect some clear inconsistency in the results, then it feels appropriate t...
	13	2025-08-24 19:35	SomeoneElse	> Indeed, some months ago we detected vandalism in UK counties who is "we"?
	14	2025-08-24 19:45	MCDA ♦114	I don't know who marked them as historic, wrote the wiki article or what motive was behind it. My comments are regarding this changeset, removing the tag place=county. I consider this changeset as vandalism. County Fermanagh is in MY address and thousands of other people who LIVE here.
	15	2025-08-24 19:53	MCDA ♦114	Looks like another helicopter mapper made the change - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152654047
	16	2025-09-13 13:42	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 171876183 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some 'county place' changes in NI, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/northern-ireland-county-vs-new-council-boundaries/134728
170904368 by Sophie Middleton @ 2025-08-24 01:15 Active block	1	2025-08-24 14:54	SomeoneElse	Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/579582322 is really a guest house and not just an occasional short term let? I didn't notice a guest house here the last time I walked past.
170858581 by Flap Slimy Outward @ 2025-08-23 03:39	1	2025-08-23 13:52	NLBRT ♦20	Hi, Please refrain from making such uninformed changes. The "name=" tag is used for the common name of the place/thing, or in this case, the country. Hindi is not the sole language, and so should be in "name:hi=" instead (i.e, the tag for the name explicitly in Hindi charact...
	2	2025-08-23 14:38	SomeoneElse	Hello Flap Slimy Outward, Andy from the DWG here. Whenever you're thinking about making significant changes like this it's always a good idea to discuss with the relevant community. In this case, asking about it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/in/136 would have be...
	3	2025-08-23 16:22	Flap Slimy Outward ♦140	Here's where I got the idea that India (or Bharat) "prefers" Hindi over English: From Wikipedia: "According to Part XVII of the Constitution of India, Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union, along with English as an additional official language.&quo...
	4	2025-08-23 16:45	NLBRT ♦20	1) While yes, Hindi is native to India, but it's not the sole language. Moreover, it is only the official language of the Central Government, alongside English, and not a constitutionally designated "national" language. The Constitution allows states autonomy in language policy, prote...
169895841 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-08-03 09:53	1	2025-08-22 12:47	Casey_boy ♦85	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168713995/ dog=leased? Only dogs that have been hired can walk here? ;-)
	2	2025-08-22 13:21	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
110081197 by Falsernet @ 2021-08-22 22:38	1	2025-05-10 10:30	SomeoneElse	Hello, What is the source of the name "Rockingstone Moss Interchange"? I've used it many times, and have never seen this sign. The only examples I can find are basically fantasy (SABRE) or pages that use OSM as a source. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-08-19 17:27	SomeoneElse	See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170683167
170320713 by 1andythornton @ 2025-08-12 04:32	1	2025-08-12 18:53	SomeoneElse	Hello, Does the "Severn Way Source" route run along the edge of the island now? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13159639#map=17/52.714283/-2.755907 Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-08-12 23:26	1andythornton ♦1	Hi Andy, Apologies, I deleted that section in error. Having reviewed the OS map I now realise my mistake. I hope I have reinstated it correctly. Andy
	3	2025-08-14 12:48	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I've re-added it to the relation so that http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=13159639&noCache=true&_noCache=on and http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=13159639 look OK too.
	4	2025-08-14 12:52	1andythornton ♦1	Thanks Andy, and apologies again. I suspect you are a more advanced user than me! Andy 🙂
169082292 by mstrbrid @ 2025-07-17 22:09	1	2025-08-11 12:26	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
169017012 by Simon Sustrans @ 2025-07-16 14:34	1	2025-07-17 07:32	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just wondered if the extra bit of NCN33 you can see at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/76059#map=17/50.925816/-2.912251 is really still there, or is part of an old alignment? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-07-18 13:08	Simon Sustrans ♦6	Hi Andy, another good spot! I thought I had removed that segment from the relation when I made the changes, but obviously not. Now removed. Simon P
	3	2025-08-11 12:17	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
80751590 by Gyrwa @ 2020-02-09 13:31	1	2025-08-05 21:46	SomeoneElse	Hello, I'm guessing that "community_centre=club_home" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7197451069 might be a typo, but what for? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-08-05 22:21	Gyrwa ♦12	Good catch Andy, it must have been intended for the scout hut to the south.
	3	2025-08-07 20:28	Gyrwa ♦12	Fixed
	4	2025-08-11 11:27	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
170266669 by Yushclay @ 2025-08-10 22:12	1	2025-08-11 08:04	SomeoneElse	Just to let you know, although Bing imagery still shows the golf course, the Esri imagery in the area (available in iD) shows the new layout. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-08-15 00:32	Yushclay ♦12	Thank you Andy! That's so much better. Appreciate the pointer.
161284238 by Pete Owens @ 2025-01-12 19:01 Active block	1	2025-08-01 20:23	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	I think some of the separately mapped sidewalks in here are a bit incomplete - see for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=53.634039%2C-2.815702%3B53.634007%2C-2.815523#map=19/53.634189/-2.814973 . If it was me, I'd just use "sidewalk=le...
	2	2025-08-08 10:01	Pete Owens Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	3	2025-08-10 13:35	SomeoneElse	Ah - no: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1220642957/history My mistake!
169342968 by mstrbrid @ 2025-07-23 12:58	1	2025-07-25 09:31	SomeoneElse	Hello, Currently there is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2941541 (not proposed) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5868477 (proposed) - if some of the bits around Porthcawl are now signed should they be moved to the other relation? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-07-25 16:06	mstrbrid ♦52	Hi Andy, I was a little surprised to find two relations at the time. I found that Sustrans don't indicate that the route will even get as far west as Porthcawl, and that "at the moment, only short sections of the route are open" https://www.sustrans.org.uk/find-a-route-on-the-nation...
	3	2025-08-06 10:56	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I'd suggest that if you know where there's signage on the "proposed" relation it's worth you moving it to the other one.
165418345 by LivingWithDragons @ 2025-04-25 11:03	1	2025-07-04 18:18	SomeoneElse	Hello, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12784056908#map=20/56.4591569/-2.9774313 has both disused:amenity and healthcare tags - I guess it needs adjusting one way or the others? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-07-26 14:50	LivingWithDragons ♦55	It is a disused doctors surgery (signage still in place, but note on the door says it's now closed). I've removed the healthcare tag.
	3	2025-08-06 10:54	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
169894177 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-08-03 09:13	1	2025-08-03 09:51	SomeoneElse	Includes one bike route guidepost in York
169299919 by Simon Sustrans @ 2025-07-22 15:28	1	2025-07-25 09:24	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just wondered - is the extra spur northeast of Chillaton deliberate? https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5422375 Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-07-29 09:41	Simon Sustrans ♦6	That's an error, now removed. Also spotted a rogue spur at Marystow. Thanks, Simon
	3	2025-07-30 21:46	SomeoneElse	I wonder if that got saved? I still see both spurs at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5422375#map=16/50.62383/-4.20835 ?
	4	2025-07-31 17:22	Simon Sustrans ♦6	That's weird, I'm sure I had saved it. Let's hope it works this time.
169527785 by Constrado @ 2025-07-26 20:57 Active block	1	2025-07-26 21:18	SomeoneElse	Have you discussed this edit with the Polish community? The elevation of the road class here isn't in line with my recollection of previous discussions.
	2	2025-07-26 21:42	pavvv ♦592	@Constrado ustalono że społecznością, że drogi do takich małych lotnisk są tertiary, bo wiesz, większość pasażerów zabiera stolica https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kategorie-drog-do-portow-lotniczych/127169 @SomeoneElse of course not, a revert would be appreciated
	3	2025-07-28 13:54	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	reverted as vandalism, situation is well known to this user https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169615935
	4	2025-07-28 13:55	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	"mapowane zgodnie z OSM WIKI !" - niby jakim kawałkiem? Dobrze wiesz że zmiana taka wymaga dyskusji przed jej wykonaniem.
	5	2025-07-28 13:58	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	@Constrado - can you just stop? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8044348/history
	6	2025-07-28 19:49	SomeoneElse	@Constrado - I think you need to apologise to to the Polish community for the way that you've been behaving. I would suggest that you need to do that before doing anything else.
169111740 by CarlosGeldo @ 2025-07-18 14:09	1	2025-07-18 14:24	SomeoneElse	Is this definitely operational again? It was previously edited in OSM to say that it wasn't; if it is, where are the new readings shown?
169077565 by Yan Bakhmat @ 2025-07-17 19:26	1	2025-07-17 19:32	SomeoneElse	Odd though it sounds, we can't actually use wikipedia as a source for OSM as the licence is incompatible. However, I'm sure that there are licence compatible sources (look at whatevev wikipedia used, for example) and also our of copyright sources (since I doubt that it has changed recentl...
169028746 by run'n'ride @ 2025-07-16 18:55	1	2025-07-17 06:06	rskedgell ♦1,673	How can a public bridleway have horse=private + bicycle=private? If your access tagging is correct, it's a footpath, not a bridleway. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374455218
	2	2025-07-17 14:26	SomeoneElse	Hello, (also about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374455218/history ). The changeset comment says "Correcting access / type where no ROW exists or where it is incorrect. Footpath only / driveways etc " which doesn't match the situation here. It's tagged in OSM as a designat...
	3	2025-07-17 18:01	run'n'ride ♦9	Apologies - amended the wrong item. Glad to see it's now set correctly.
	4	2025-07-17 18:15	SomeoneElse	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374455218#map=16/51.70150/-1.98438 still has horse=private and bicycle=private, which seems unlikely given that it is designated as a public bridleway?
77643798 by Netzwolf @ 2019-11-27 16:12	1	2019-12-29 00:14	Mike Baggaley ♦630	I think your change of way 83637768 may be incorrect - access=private has been added but it has a local authority reference and also the Cape Wrath Trail running along it. Can you please review? Thanks, Mike
	2	2025-07-17 15:35	SomeoneElse	(for the benefit of anyone stumbling across this) the access=private issue was addressed 5 years ago in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78972463
168880935 by OrangeHurst97 @ 2025-07-13 16:18	1	2025-07-17 08:11	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like this change has removed the section round the north of Huntsham Hill from the Wye Valley Walk: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/61495#map=15/51.84537/-2.63507 . It was there a few days ago: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/280C . Does it need to be added back? Best Regards,...
	2	2025-07-17 12:24	OrangeHurst97 ♦12	Hi Andy, I removed this section after I noticed there was no WVW signage on these paths, which was later confirmed by the WVW website once I got home. These paths were in rather poor condition, so I suspect the trail was moved due to this. Either way, it is clear that I mistakenly introduced er...
	3	2025-07-17 12:40	SomeoneElse	> I mistakenly introduced errors in this edit Not really - if there is a gap in the trail (or we can't see where it goes) then there should be a gap in OSM, and if the WVW website isn't directly usable then for now we can only go with what is signed (or not) on the ground (specifical...
168971849 by Simon Sustrans @ 2025-07-15 15:34	1	2025-07-17 07:59	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just wondered whether there should be a gap in the non-NCN Mercian Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12015034#map=20/51.7439262/-2.2222510 ? (you can see two orange bits of the relation with a gap here). Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-07-18 13:05	Simon Sustrans ♦6	Hi Andy, well spotted! I have removed the short segment of the Stroud link. Best, Simon Pratt
168999145 by NTTrailsNTH @ 2025-07-16 07:47	1	2025-07-17 07:41	SomeoneElse	Hello, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1414082973 was newly added here, and you've added it to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19341660 (the "Ancient Trees Walk"), but I've also added it to the Way of Roses and 688 cycle routes as there was an obvious gap in those too.\...
168424600 by amalash @ 2025-07-03 04:40	1	2025-07-03 05:31	Milhouse ♦27	Hi shyamalashanthi! Welcome to OpenStreetMap! My name is Steven and I do a lot of mapping in Ealing. I see you've been mapping pavements in Northfields and though you are free to map whatever you like, wanted to check whether you understood how pedestrian routing worked and whether adding...
	2	2025-07-03 16:37	ndrw6 ♦79	Hi Steven, While I understand your concern about maintainability or excessive details, adding pavements (as well as any other details) is perfectly fine. Mappers may have different ideas on what details are important. There's also no requirement for edits to be complete or even correct, as l...
	3	2025-07-08 10:28	rphyrin ♦2	Regarding the debate on whether we should map the sidewalk as a separate geometry : https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kumakyoo/diary/406875
	4	2025-07-08 12:47	Milhouse ♦27	Hi rphyrin, Yes, absolutely there are circumstances where mapping sidewalks separately records very useful information, and other places where it adds no useful information, makes the map look crap and incomplete, and can actually complicate routing decisions. I would argue that this particular...
	5	2025-07-08 15:28	Cebderby ♦313	Where the sidewalk is continuously adjacent to the carriageway (no big grass areas etc just an immediate kerb), and has no special access (eg shared cycleway), then the extra footway is a duplicate way. The public highway is mapped and carries the foot traffic. We don't add a second footway ...
	6	2025-07-08 16:27	ndrw6 ♦79	Cebderby, I understand your point but it is still _your_ preference and opinion. Others will disagree, as it is common in all discussions about the level of detail. Please refrain from accusing others of bad mapping only because you disagree with their choices.
	7	2025-07-08 17:49	Milhouse ♦27	ndrw6, but people are pointing out how this makes the data harder to work with. It would help if amalash would reply and acknowledge the incorrect mapping and explain the use case they think they are serving, but since this changeset comment they've ignored they've gone on to: Map sidewa...
	8	2025-07-08 17:50	Milhouse ♦27	Also if you are going to map sidewalks as separate ways, shouldn't you then remove the sidewalk=both tag from the road, or at least tag sidewalk=separate?
	9	2025-07-08 19:49	ndrw6 ♦79	Milhouse, My issue with this discussion is calling such changes "incorrect" or "bad mapping" when objectively they are not. I do not see why amalash would need to acknowledge that. Incomplete data are a norm - just look at this map, there are partially mapped fences or individ...
	10	2025-07-08 22:51	Milhouse ♦27	Hey, OpenStreetMap, give me a walking route from 23 Balmoral Gardens to 23 Jersey Road on the other side of the road. https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.502463%2C-0.326765%3B51.502593%2C-0.327133#map=19/51.502408/-0.326554 Yeah, I'm going back to ...
	11	2025-07-08 22:52	Milhouse ♦27	If you can't see why getting ways wrong creates a fundamental problem with one of the primary use cases of a geospatial database I don't think it's worth continuing the conversation.
	12	2025-07-09 08:41	ndrw6 ♦79	I would say this is a router issue. I am not even sure if it uses sidewalk= tags at all, it seems to fallback to any roads that don't explicitly ban pedestrians. At the same time it indeed over-prioritises footways. The solution is to keep mapping and keep improving routers. Not to dumb down...
	13	2025-07-09 08:45	Milhouse ♦27	The. Data. Is. Wrong!
	14	2025-07-12 09:10	Wynndale ♦57	These pavements are buttjoined onto the road traversably. We don’t map lanes of roads separately, how are these any different? Also one participant to this conversation has been making unhelpful edits.
	15	2025-07-12 13:00	SomeoneElse	For info, the DWG got a nudge which mentioned this changeset discussion (not, I hasten to add, a complaint about it directly). I think a forum thread might make more sense (it'd be a bit more visible and allow easier linking) so I've created that at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/s...
	16	2025-10-21 03:00	kauevestena ♦8	Sidewalks are pathways themselves, walkers have the right of having their paths mapped as well as car users! In my opinion, when you use tags like sidewalk=yes/left/right you are just mapping sidewalk evidence, not the sidewalk itself, that is a path, that have it's own geometry and its own pro...
	17	2025-10-21 03:27	Milhouse ♦27	Please visit the Community link above where this is discussed in great detail. Believe me, I strongly believe in the important role of OSM to be the best pedestrian (and other) router and expended a lot of effort to ensure that the tagging reflected the situation on the ground, and also reflected th...
	18	2025-10-21 08:25	ndrw6 ♦79	There is no consensus on that and many (myself included) prefer mapping the pavements explicitly.
	19	2025-10-21 17:23	kauevestena ♦8	Millhouse, it shall improve: pedestrians don't walk on the top of streets, therefore you'll would be always underestimating the length in that way. Pedestrians cross using the well-named crosswalks, not road intersections. In many places (like here in my city, Curitiba, Brazil) isn't ...
168582995 by Murali3 @ 2025-07-07 01:20	1	2025-07-11 19:20	SomeoneElse	Hello You've written "added tags" in the changeset comment here, but that doesn't really help other OSM mappers understand what you changed and what the source was. It would be great if you could use a bit more detail! Best Regards, Andy
168717791 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-07-09 23:06	1	2025-07-10 10:25	gurglypipe ♦953	leisure=outdoor_seating outdoor_seating=yes doesn’t make any sense. Why make this change?
	2	2025-07-10 23:20	SomeoneElse	It was a cockup on my part - I thought that I was changing the "outdoor_seating" tag on the pub, not the "outdoor_seating" tag on the outdoor seating...
	3	2025-07-10 23:28	gurglypipe ♦953	Hah, yes, I can see how that could happen. Thanks for fixing it (For anyone else who reads this, it was fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168764186)
168708301 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-07-09 17:59	1	2025-07-09 19:27	SomeoneElse	This failed with "cannot upload changeset: 520 <none> at /home/ajtown/src/osm-revert-scripts/lib/Progress.pm line 104.", which isn't great. The changeset comment was supposed to be "Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks...
124097210 by deduce technologies @ 2022-07-26 13:30 Active block	1	2022-07-29 11:46	highflyer74 ♦2,451	Hello! Recently a couple of addresses were added that contain addr:communee=*. This seems to be a new key that is not used anywhere else on the planet. Can you help me further as to why this is used? All the best!
	2	2025-07-09 18:26	SomeoneElse	@deduce technologies : what was the source of this data?
168708082 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-07-09 17:53	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 168631271, 168631326, 168631334, 168631918, 168648673, 168675005, 168676597, 168676615, 168680892, 168680909, 168680937, 168693810, 168693861, 168693935.
168631326 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 05:22 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168676597 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 05:03 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168708079 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-07-09 17:53	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 168631271, 168631326, 168631334, 168631918, 168648673, 168675005, 168676597, 168676615, 168680892, 168680909, 168680937, 168693810, 168693861, 168693935.
168631334 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 05:22 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168631918 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 05:46 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168648673 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 12:49 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168693861 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 12:34 Active block	1	2025-07-09 12:51	NeisReview ♦1,470	#DataImport Hi, welcome to OSM! With this changeset, you've added a significant number of features that appear to share similarities in their tags. Could you please let us know more about the source of your mapping activity? Is this a data import? Looking forward to hearing from you. ...
	2	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168680892 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 07:34 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168680937 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 07:35 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168693935 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 12:36 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168676615 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 05:04 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168680909 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 07:34 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168631271 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-08 05:19 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168675005 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 03:39 Active block	1	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
168693810 by deduce Tech @ 2025-07-09 12:33 Active block	1	2025-07-09 12:50	NeisReview ♦1,470	Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168693861
	2	2025-07-09 17:53	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 168708079, 168708082 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed guessed-geometry import, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18428
165611883 by JassKurn @ 2025-04-29 23:14	1	2025-07-07 23:11	SomeoneElse	I'm guessing that the gaps here are due to Storm Bert https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgndlp303go ?
	2	2025-07-08 11:37	JassKurn ♦168	Yes, and you've reminded me that I've got to update it. Water started flowing into the quarry to the east, and land to west was washed into quarry. At time I mapped it the area was flooded but receding, so didn't add water. The water is still there and being fed by a flow from the...
165019203 by Dave Venables @ 2025-04-16 09:29	1	2025-07-04 18:15	SomeoneElse	Hi, If this is open again I guess that the "disused:amenity=dentist" tag can go? Cheers, Andy
	2	2025-07-05 08:38	Dave Venables ♦168	I've just marked Whitaker Dental Practice as disused https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65724144 as I had spotted when passing n 2021 Incorrectly added back earlier this year as shown on the Healthcare Quarterly project tool and on the Care Quality Commission listing https://www.cqc.org.uk/loca...
	3	2025-07-05 09:48	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
165479061 by SmithyScotland @ 2025-04-26 18:47	1	2025-07-04 18:14	SomeoneElse	Hello, If this is no longer a dentist then I guess the healthcare=dentist tag should also be removed? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-07-04 19:00	SmithyScotland ♦15	I seem to remember this place looked long term shut, possibly a note on the window. A few websites say the place is still open however in that location. Not sure what the story is to be honest.
	3	2025-07-04 19:03	SmithyScotland ♦15	Have crated a note and requested this building is checked https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4839193
	4	2025-07-04 19:07	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
156408342 by osmuser63783 @ 2024-09-09 18:23	1	2025-07-04 18:37	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've added a name:sg to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/node/3950817291 - is that correct (Sango - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639_language_codes ) or should it actually be gd (Scottish Gaelic)? Best Regards, Andy
166078356 by cart0 @ 2025-05-10 17:01	1	2025-07-04 18:20	SomeoneElse	Hello, If https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/node/6013943584 has shut then I guess that the "healthcare" tag should be removed? Best Regards, Andy
105646447 by user_5589 @ 2021-05-31 22:24	1	2025-07-04 17:47	SomeoneElse	Hello, in this changeset https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/237206161 had "public_transport=platform" added, but according to the note it's out of use? Best Regards, Andy
166867809 by MihaelIvanjek @ 2025-05-28 10:05	1	2025-05-30 09:09	SomeoneElse	Hello, What was the source of these changes? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-05-30 15:50	MihaelIvanjek ♦17	Hi! I used signs that I found on bing streetside indicating a weight limit of 7.5 along with an exception for access. One set of two signs can be found about right where Ince Lane meets Ash Road, and the other is very slightly down Ince Lane where Orchard Park Lane meets it. Hope that explains it!...
	3	2025-05-30 16:46	SomeoneElse	Thanks - are these technically maxweight or maxweightrating? The latter is probably the more common (designed to keep hgvs off some roads, whether loaded or not), but the former also occurs (e.g. on weak bridges - where you also see axle limits).
	4	2025-05-30 17:31	MihaelIvanjek ♦17	Perhaps the more "correct" tag would be maxweightrating, however, before we (OptimoRoute*) started mapping in the UK we looked into how it's been done so far - and generally from what we saw mappers up until now used maxweight for the vast majority of signs, while reserving maxweightr...
	5	2025-07-03 10:02	SomeoneElse	For info, you might be interested in the forum topic https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maxweight-meaning-and-maxweightrating/132190/1 .
	6	2025-08-03 03:55	MarkoŠatrak ♦51	I am writing here as a leader of OptimoRoute organised editing activity (osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/OptimoRoute) for anyone who might be tracking this changeset. The concern raised by @SomeoneElse is being discussed here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/optimoroute-organised-edi...
168300556 by TheSwavu @ 2025-06-30 09:36	1	2025-06-30 19:41	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
168283714 by catgirl mapper @ 2025-06-29 21:27	1	2025-06-29 21:32	SomeoneElse	Hello, and welcome to OSM! When you say you "checked on construction* did you actually viait or have personal knowledge of this localation? Aerial (and streetside) imagery will not be helpful for finding out what the current state of construction is - it is by definition out of date. Best Re...
	2	2025-06-30 05:25	catgirl mapper ♦3	I did not actually visit the location but the satellite imagery shows it under construction in 2023 and the last checked date was in 2015 so I moved the last checked date to the day that the satellite imagery was taken. It is possible that it is completed now but I can't make that change.
168280869 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-06-29 19:54	1	2025-06-29 20:37	SomeoneElse	Burley in Wharfdale, from survey 15/06/2025, ts1994b
167441092 by Adam Edwards @ 2025-06-10 11:59	1	2025-06-13 09:42	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just wondered - is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13113383#map=16/51.80928/-0.03301 part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/31640#map=16/51.80928/-0.03301 (or does the main route continue along the canal, past the NCN milepost https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/160080113 )? B...
	2	2025-06-13 12:15	Adam Edwards ♦17	The Sustrans info is the official route is south of the primary school via Ware station and Crane Mead, but also the section along side the canal up to the High Street Bridge. The tow path from High Street westwards has been delisted as it's very narrow with a very poor surface. The section f...
	3	2025-06-13 12:18	Adam Edwards ♦17	I've removed the incorrect highlight from the northern section of Station Road. I'm cycling here on Monday to add stick on signs where needed in my role as the local Sustrans Volunteer Coordinator.
	4	2025-06-13 12:20	Adam Edwards ♦17	Should add this makes the mile post redundant. You can see the Sustrans official routes here: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/national-cycle-network/
	5	2025-06-13 12:21	Adam Edwards ♦17	A bit of context: Sustrans reviewed it's routes four years ago and set higher safety standards for traffic and accessibility. Routes which fail these tests have been deleted.
	6	2025-06-13 12:53	SomeoneElse	Thanks for that! Does that mean that the ways that are part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13113383 could perhaps be moved to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/31640 ? There are a few other NCN routes that have several pieces like this (not for reasons of length), but I suspect tha...
	7	2025-06-15 13:00	Adam Edwards ♦17	Yes, that makes sense although that relation needs editing. NCN61 ends officially at Rye House, not Hoddesdon. I'll have a go sorting that. Off to ride the route tomorrow.
	8	2025-06-29 13:37	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
167981446 by tomyak @ 2025-06-23 02:54	1	2025-06-29 13:17	SomeoneElse	Hello tomyak, Please do use more descriptive changeset comments than just "updated" - it really will help other mappers to help you! Best Regards, Andy
168182106 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-06-27 11:53	1	2025-06-28 08:53	Wynndale ♦57	You really should be using your position to set an example to other mappers instead of trolling the database like this.
	2	2025-06-28 10:18	SomeoneElse	?
155541805 by DWCORNE @ 2024-08-21 07:29	1	2025-06-24 22:42	SomeoneElse	Hello, "Fareham Street" here has had "ford=yes" set here: https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1164013794 . I'm guessing that that was a mistake and some other tag was made? Best Regards, Andy
167496010 by ICT_maps @ 2025-06-11 14:56	1	2025-06-11 15:50	ilias_ ♦374	Edits in the USA and Australia is crazy ngl
	2	2025-06-11 18:22	muralito ♦2,090	Hi. You changed amenity=ice_cream for fast_food in Australia. Did you verify it? It was on purpose or a mistake searching for the same name?
	3	2025-06-11 18:26	ilias_ ♦374	I'm pretty sure the user simply updated the Wendy's to match the default preset tags, and Wendy's is indeed a fast_food.
	4	2025-06-11 18:27	InsertUser ♦462	What is your basis for saying that the Australian Wendys is a burger place? This object was last edited in 2013 and the American burger chain seems to have opened its first Australian store earlier this year: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/wendys-opens-first-australian-store-40-...
	5	2025-06-11 18:31	ilias_ ♦374	You're absolutely right, as I said the user seemingly updated instances of "Wendys" to the fast food chain "Wendy's", without actually checking each one. So you're right, that's actually Wendy's Milk Bar. It did have a typo before.
	6	2025-06-11 20:30	ICT_maps ♦9	It's been fixed, as you all are also empowered to do.
	7	2025-06-11 20:33	ilias_ ♦374	You are also empowered to check your edits when doing automated changes.
	8	2025-06-23 12:07	SomeoneElse	Hello, The iD editor's brand suggestions are just that - suggestions. Please don't apply them in places that you are not familiar with Quite a lot of the suggestions for brands have incorrect geographical areas or are just rubbish. The onus is always on the person accepting the suggesti...
167833871 by Phút @ 2025-06-19 16:02 Active block	1	2025-06-19 16:11	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! You've deleted a few houses here - are they no longer standing? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-06-21 06:53	Supaplex ♦10,537	It seems buildings still exist https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167899987
	3	2025-06-21 10:35	SomeoneElse	User is blocked now for other reasons https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18371 , DWG ticket 2025062010000323 .
167801325 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-06-18 21:52	1	2025-06-21 09:43	SomeoneElse	Hello, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1396460767 was newly added in here, and looks like it should be added to the western bit of the C2C. When adding new ways via Vespucci I don't know of an easy way to check what relations they "Should have been part of", so I tend to review fo...
165887084 by Bobbi123 @ 2025-05-06 11:24	1	2025-06-14 14:14	SomeoneElse	If https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1384003260/history was shown on a map above other features despite being underground I'd suggest using a different map!
	2	2025-06-14 14:14	SomeoneElse	Wenn https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1384003260/history auf einer Karte über anderen Merkmalen angezeigt würde, obwohl es sich unterirdisch befindet, würde ich die Verwendung einer anderen Karte vorschlagen!
167456642 by Bamamba85 @ 2025-06-10 17:43	1	2025-06-10 17:50	SomeoneElse	Hello Bamamba85 and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I think your previous changeset comment might have got a bit "stuck" (this doesn't really look like "Updating golf course features"). Using changeset comments that explains what you are doing helps other people to help you. If...
167264510 by NTTrailsNTH @ 2025-06-06 12:27	1	2025-06-08 10:21	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like a couple of gaps got introduced into the North Cheshire Way here (it's a bit tricky seeing what is a member of what relation in Vespucci (and sometimes the names don't appear properly there!). The gaps can be seen at https://overpass-turb...
44318426 by pezza10 @ 2016-12-11 09:32	1	2025-05-31 09:56	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think that something has gone wrong with the data here. On e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4548877130 I'd expect "diameter_crown" to be a number but it is instead "width: 2.0; color: green;". Maybe a json conversion went wrong? There are 289 of these: ht...
166992058 by 최이두두두두 @ 2025-05-30 22:14	1	2025-05-31 09:42	SomeoneElse	Hello 최이두두두두 and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Please do slow down when you are mapping things. It's clear that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056097 is actually supposed to be rectangular and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056100 is more than one building. You can make...
	2	2025-05-31 09:43	SomeoneElse	안녕하세요, 최이두두두두님, OpenStreetMap에 오신 것을 환영합니다! 지도를 제작하실 때는 속도를 늦춰주세요. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056097은 실제로 직사각형이어야 하고, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391056100은 건물 여러 개...
166966786 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-05-30 11:31	1	2025-05-30 15:01	SomeoneElse	No there isn't
166623567 by Ruari Byers @ 2025-05-22 17:34	1	2025-05-30 08:59	SomeoneElse	Hello, How does the England Coast Path get across the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11738490#map=19/51.131325/1.340773 ? Does it go up to the northwest and then back? Best Regards, Andy
166829070 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-05-27 14:03	1	2025-05-27 22:53	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
15567543 by frodrigo @ 2013-04-01 12:52	1	2016-10-19 23:01	SK53 ♦865	Just discovered your Bordeaux tree import (when I saw trees in Bordeaux I had a sneaky feeling I knew who might have done it). A couple of notes: specifically about species=Acer saccharinum. You have placed the cultivar name in the taxon tag. I think best practice is to follow the example of V...
	2	2025-05-26 09:26	SomeoneElse	Are you sure that the height and diameter of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2242260005/history are correct? It's apparently a London Plane that is 5 times wider than in is high. Are you sure that that that diameter number isn't a circumference?
	3	2025-05-27 13:14	SK53 ♦865	Quick use of the measurement panel in iD suggests 10 metres is a more reasonable value, although the tree crowns are not uniformly round. It's worth binning values (e.g. using R) with this sort of data to find obvious outliers (Stereo first noticed peculiar values with Belfast tree open data. ...
	4	2025-06-12 10:29	ivanbranco ♦2,797	Another odd one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2242250499/history A Quercus robur with a height of 24 metres and a circumference of 0.01 metres. I’d expect the circumference to be around 3–4 metres, or the height to be at most 9 metres.
32741250 by flaimo @ 2015-07-19 20:32	1	2025-05-26 09:21	SomeoneElse	Are you sure that the size values for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3658274203 are correct? circumference=0.04 and height=12 are plausible for a Silver Birch, but diameter_crown=77 is 6 times wider than it's high - unlikely for a Silver Birch, and unlikely to be supported by that 4cm-wide...
	2	2025-06-09 23:01	ivanbranco ♦2,797	I noticed other weird values while looking at Acer platanoides trees: https://www.osm.org/node/3658207772 according to monumentaltrees.com (https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/trees/acerplatanoides/records/) the tallest Acer platanoides is 37.90m, this one is 40m. Maybe OSM data is correct, who k...
150358724 by ivanbranco @ 2024-04-22 17:35	1	2025-05-26 09:17	SomeoneElse	The tree https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10162104746/history seems to be a funny shape for a Sycamore - it's 12m high with a 30cm or so diameter trunk (which is fair enough) but has a crown diameter of 65m - 5.5 times larger than its height. Sycamores usually are not that shape...
	2	2025-05-26 14:53	ivanbranco ♦2,797	I edited these trees while focusing on fixing incorrect circumference values in imports (e.g. see also: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/possible-error-in-linz-tree-import/113040), so it's definitely possible other errors from the import went unnoticed. I didn’t catch this one at the...
128555554 by B1000 @ 2022-11-06 13:40	1	2025-05-26 09:17	SomeoneElse	The tree https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10162104746/history seems to be a funny shape for a Sycamore - it's 12m high with a 30cm or so diameter trunk (which is fair enough) but has a crown diameter of 65m - 5.5 times larger than its height. Sycamores usually are not that shape...
162203782 by Sforzando9500 @ 2025-02-06 11:12	1	2025-05-25 21:49	SomeoneElse	Hello, Are the names of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/560045874 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12561176892 really "Brock Crags (Wainwright)" and "Brock Crags (summit)"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Crags just has "Brock_Crags" (with one named, and ...
22244970 by krd_mapper @ 2014-05-10 07:48	1	2025-05-25 13:57	SomeoneElse	Hello, I know it was a long time ago, but just spotted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2847593295 - what battle actually was it? Best Regards, Andy
166126886 by wombatmaper @ 2025-05-11 21:25	1	2025-05-11 22:13	archie ♦1,356	Vad är anledningen till att du raderat det här hindret? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1364264707/history
	2	2025-05-11 22:18	wombatmaper ♦85	https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11638849003/history barriärtaggen var inte på en nod utan på en väg
	3	2025-05-11 22:25	archie ♦1,356	Så, barriers får inte vara på en linje (way); speciellt om det rör sig om flera stycken? Kan du belägga (bevisa) detta? Jag ser något annat: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier
	4	2025-05-11 22:25	archie ♦1,356	Dessutom raderade du info om avstånd mellan stenarna. Inte bra alls.
	5	2025-05-11 22:30	archie ♦1,356	du raderade även accessrättigheterna som därmed försvårar routingen.
	6	2025-05-11 22:31	wombatmaper ♦85	verkligen bra hitta, jag fixade de värden jag tog bort
	7	2025-05-11 22:32	archie ♦1,356	det har jag redan gjort
	8	2025-05-11 22:33	wombatmaper ♦85	Noden i skärningspunkten mellan barriären och stigen var inte taggad, vilket innebär att navigationsprogram inte kan tolka den.
	9	2025-05-11 22:34	wombatmaper ♦85	Jag antar att vi kan behålla barriärvägen, men det verkar bara som dubbel information eftersom den är så kort
	10	2025-05-11 22:39	archie ♦1,356	När det rör sig om flera barriers på platsen och uppgift om avstånd dem emellan finns ger det ingen som helst mening att rita barrier som nod, men desto mera att rita barrier som way.
	11	2025-05-11 22:44	wombatmaper ♦85	från wikin: Start by placing a tag barrier=block on a node node that's part of an existing way to indicate where the barrier is.
	12	2025-05-23 21:26	SomeoneElse	Hello wombatmaper, "barrier=block" absolutely can be on a way rather than a node. Have a look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/barrier=block - as you can see, there are 1000s of them mapped that way already. In addition, please use better changeset comments than "resolved ...
	13	2025-05-23 21:57	wombatmaper ♦85	Hej SomeoneElse, thank you for your feedback. However I still believe that a node is much more appropriate here since the vast majority of these ways are longer, and block off two different areas where they function more as a fence. None of the ones I checked even intersected with a path / road. How...
	14	2025-05-23 22:01	wombatmaper ♦85	Also note the "resolved" tags in my changeset. It seemed redundant to reiterate them in the changeset comment, but I will do so in the future
	15	2025-05-23 22:06	SomeoneElse	Perhaps you could take a photo of the affected area?
	16	2025-05-23 22:15	wombatmaper ♦85	I did not take a photo when I was there in person. Google has a picture but I am not sure if posting it here would be considered a copyright issue, since I am mapping based on local knowledge, and only trying to prove my point I guess?
	17	2025-05-24 06:45	archie ♦1,356	There is nothing unusual or special at all with this blockage or with this road. Routing with barrier-ways works beautifully with routing-servers on osm.org, thats why people use barrier-ways. Just test it and see for yourself and don't spread fakes (or are you refering to your own routing-ser...
	18	2025-05-24 09:42	SomeoneElse	Actually, one more thing, "resolved issued detected by id " suggests that you think the suggestions that iD offers (including things like operator/brand, wikidata, etc.) are correct. My experience is that often they are not. I personally would not accept any suggestion by iD unless I per...
	19	2025-05-24 10:05	wombatmaper ♦85	@archie I suggest reading the wiki, "Rendering of a map is the process of making a visual image on the basis of raw geospatial data and tags. ". A router is not a renderer. Just read it and see for yourself and don't spread fakes.
	20	2025-05-24 10:09	wombatmaper ♦85	Indeed, some of the iD fixes are problematic, I have contributed some fixes in the past to the iD repository but other ones, such as the misspeling of "Göteborgs Stad" still need to be fixed. I generally only resolve obvious fixes to places I have already been.
	21	2025-05-24 10:11	SomeoneElse	(with regard to the wiki) that's supposed to document how people map, not tell people how to map. There are many, many wiki pages that contradict other wiki pages. It's a useful guide, but all it tells you is that "the last person that edited that page thought X".
166109780 by user_5359 @ 2025-05-11 13:50	1	2025-05-23 21:13	SomeoneElse	Looks like spam to me
166588431 by b-jazz-bot @ 2025-05-21 22:24	1	2025-05-23 21:12	SomeoneElse	https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12825008634/history looks like spam to me :)
166647833 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-05-23 10:04	1	2025-05-23 12:11	SomeoneElse	In here I've changed the Dales High Way route up Shipley Glen - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7152429#map=16/53.85060/-1.80649 . The previous route may once have existed, but peters out north of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1388968997 which is a bit of a scramble back up.
165091458 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-04-17 23:06	1	2025-05-23 09:13	Paul Berry ♦135	Thanks for picking this up. I've now fixed this on changeset #166645811.
	2	2025-05-23 12:07	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
166516019 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-05-20 10:01	1	2025-05-21 22:42	SomeoneElse	Hello, In the last month, a few gaps have opened up in the Robin Hood Way by the lake at Clumber Before: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/24CK Now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1652131#map=15/53.26818/-1.05649 My recollection is that there isn't a lot of Robin Hood Way signage here, ...
	2	2025-05-27 14:59	NTTrailsMEE ♦3	Hi Andy, Thanks for pointing this out. Should all be correct now.
165909049 by Wookey @ 2025-05-06 19:37	1	2025-05-19 19:47	SomeoneElse	Oops - somehow "utility=gas; marker=pedestal" got added to the (unfortunately closed) Aldwark Arms. Maybe a preset accidentially got added in Vespucci? :)
	2	2025-05-19 20:20	Wookey ♦22	Thanks for spotting that. Yes, Vespucci is prone to auto-including tags from a totally separate earlier edit. I did wonder whether to mark the pub closed. It seemed to be, but there was also no notice or boarding so it might have been a one-day emergency.
166217758 by jpolvto @ 2025-05-13 18:22	1	2025-05-13 19:36	gurglypipe ♦953	Heya, thanks for adding the ID, but it’s actually already correctly set on the superroute relation which links all these route relations. The wikidata ID for the entire Pennine Way isn’t quite correct to use on individual parts of the route, so I’ve undone this change (https://www....
	2	2025-05-13 19:36	gurglypipe ♦953	You can see the superroute relation here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4080347
	3	2025-05-13 23:08	jpolvto ♦4	Hey! I’m aware, unfortunately this doesn’t work for Wikivoyage. I have to add the wiki data id for the individual stages if I want the trail to render. It’s a known bug (and workaround). I don’t like it either, and I’m trying to have it fixed. This is the only way we ca...
	4	2025-05-14 07:18	jpolvto ♦4	As an alternative, I can add all of the individual stages to wikidata, but I think that’s worse for everyone. I have done this in the past though.
	5	2025-05-14 09:09	gurglypipe ♦953	Ah, that makes sense. Can you point me to the discussion/issue report about getting the renderer fixed please?
	6	2025-05-14 13:19	jpolvto ♦4	Can be found here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T388303 Please post! I'd love to get this fixed, the more people point this issue out, the better.
	7	2025-05-17 11:03	SomeoneElse	Another option (something that I mentioned in the forum) would be to use a different map in the wikivoyage articles. The one currently on https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Pennine_Way is basically a road map and really not useful at any level of detail.
	8	2025-05-17 12:57	jpolvto ♦4	Hi, thanks for the input. These IDs were added to improve data integration with Wikivoyage and other tools that rely on linking OSM features with structured data. This is common practice across many named routes and not unique to this trail. If you believe there's a broader issue with this appr...
	9	2025-05-17 13:49	SomeoneElse	Re your comment above "... let's raise it on the tagging list or the relevant proposal thread to get broader community input", for the avoidance of doubt in the comment that you replied to I already said "... something that I mentioned in the forum". For completeness, tha...
	10	2025-05-17 14:45	jpolvto ♦4	While you did mention it on the forum, this was not the topic of the thread. Responding to it there risks derailing the thread. If you feel like the Wikivoyage/OpenStreetMap integration should be questioned, and, if I interpret this correctly, screenshots of Waymarked Trails should be used instead, ...
166280406 by KKS @ 2025-05-14 23:29	1	2025-05-16 07:59	SomeoneElse	Hello KKS, Please do write a bit of an explanation about what you have changed in a changeset comment. It makes things so much easier for everyone else. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-05-16 08:00	SomeoneElse	Привіт, KKS, Будь ласка, напишіть невелике пояснення щодо внесених змін у коментарі до набору змін. Це значно полегшить життя всім іншим. З найкращими побажаннями, �...
	3	2025-05-16 20:57	KKS ♦226	Hi @SomeoneElse, it's just fixing stuff changeset after weird people who mapping with imagine data. After mapping I saw some people do weird things and put it to osmcha filter "random weird people", and time by time checking and fixing what they do. Someone put oneway=yes on road wit...
166160436 by diogenesCoello @ 2025-05-12 16:09	1	2025-05-14 19:35	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I'm guessing that the name of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1385843234 isn't really ddcm8733_inun , and it also looks from the imagery like it is a rectangular building, but it has not been drawn as one. You can square the corners of buildings by p...
	2	2025-05-14 19:35	SomeoneElse	¡Hola y bienvenido a OpenStreetMap! Supongo que el nombre de https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1385843234 no es realmente ddcm8733_inun, y en las imágenes parece un edificio rectangular, pero no se ha dibujado como tal. Puedes cuadrar las esquinas de los edificios presionando "q&q...
54163580 by SomeoneElse @ 2017-11-28 23:19	1	2025-05-11 07:02	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1825448775/history has shop = builders_merchant that was added in this edit shop=builders_merchant ? Is it https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=doityourself or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=trade + https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/...
	2	2025-05-13 21:27	SomeoneElse	No idea, I've never been there - I just added the underscore!
166150894 by jeslop @ 2025-05-12 12:45	1	2025-05-12 17:15	SomeoneElse	For info, two accounts were working together here. I've reverted the other one in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166163077 and have forced through the remaining reverts in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166163147
166126842 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-05-11 21:23	1	2025-05-11 22:46	SomeoneElse	ts1877a and ts1878b. Around Yorkshire Green construction site.
36491506 by brianh @ 2016-01-10 20:54	1	2025-05-11 15:30	SomeoneElse	https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5848094/history has been a "place=locality" since basically forever, but I don't think that that is correct, is it?
166025400 by wombatmaper @ 2025-05-09 12:17	1	2025-05-11 10:39	SomeoneElse	This clearly isn't correct. "Just Tyres" sells (as the name implies) "Just Tyres". You can see what the other shops are by using overpass: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/23Tx . "shop=tyres" seems to be the favourite, so I'll set this one to that.
	2	2025-05-11 10:42	SomeoneElse	Also - if you have changed any other examples in this way those will be wrong too. Please investigate each one and correct if necessary. There were 10 a couple of weeks ago: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/23Ty .
	3	2025-05-11 11:34	wombatmaper ♦85	Good point, I went through them and fixed a few: 2 incorrect tags, 2 closed stores. Thanks for the notice. I will remove this tag from my fix list for future reference
166065512 by sjorford @ 2025-05-10 11:41	1	2025-05-11 10:27	SomeoneElse	Somewhat confusingly, the service road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/733298699 was part of the Clwydian Hills relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10757713 and extending it meant that that boundary was no longer a valid polygon. I've cut it in too and removed the end part from t...
	2	2025-05-11 18:15	sjorford ♦8	Thanks for the fix! This seems to be part of a larger problem, as there are many highways that are part of protected_area relations - see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/23UG Not sure what to do about this - ideally boundaries shouldn't include other objects like highways because it's easy ...
166085279 by DaveF @ 2025-05-10 20:24	1	2025-05-10 21:05	SomeoneElse	Thanks! I spotted this again a couple of days ago and completely forgot that I'd commented on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156022134 7 months ago but never got around to fixing it.
78964227 by mapman44 @ 2019-12-28 20:05	1	2025-05-10 12:59	SomeoneElse	I'm slowly working through these and actually removing the Google-sourced IP.
128492995 by CjMalone @ 2022-11-04 16:57	1	2025-05-09 12:14	SomeoneElse	Hello, Are you sure that the "naptan:AtcoCode" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5784071207/history is correct? This appears to be in the museum; I'm guessing the code is for Didcot Parkway https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6605149662 . Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-05-09 12:39	CjMalone ♦235	I can't see 910GDIDCOTP in the current official data. I don't think have a snap shot from 3 years ago to see what it was listed as. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6605149662#map=19/51.611220/-1.242517 is correct as it currently is "9100DIDCOTP".
165369680 by Numbergod @ 2025-04-24 09:42	1	2025-05-05 10:21	SomeoneElse	I suspect that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/521292120/history is not any sort of storage tank - by the name and the location I suspect it is a filter bed in a sewage works.
165778661 by Yog Sot @ 2025-05-03 22:06	1	2025-05-04 16:27	SomeoneElse	Please use sensible changeset comments that explain what you have actually done, especially when doing reverts.
	2	2025-05-04 19:49	Yog Sot ♦365	oh i'm sorry, in essence there were lots of missing cycleway and footway highways that made it impossible to navigate em. very tedious and hard to job to go every single way that was improperly edited there. But if i'm given IDs of ways that might be okey, i can check em out no prob!
165227338 by Numbergod @ 2025-04-21 08:59	1	2025-05-04 09:58	SomeoneElse	Hello Numbergod, Is was wondering what the changes to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103827772 were here? The changeset comment is just "Fixed various issues"; what actually was the change here? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-05-04 10:05	Numbergod ♦10	Hi Andy, It was fixes to a lot of random outdated tags in RapId and road realignment mostly. Just small easy fixes to clear out the queue to get to the important stuff later. Nothing of note, just following the Pareto Principle.
	3	2025-05-04 10:22	SomeoneElse	This one had `landuse=conservation` (which is relatively rarely used, but see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dconservation ) - that sometimes means "there is something else going on, beyond just being a nature reserve", or it might be "it's a tag left over from ...
	4	2025-05-04 11:25	Numbergod ♦10	Hi Andy, I hear what you're saying. I've had good experiences with the tool, but there does seem to be a few small UK issues. We may need to look into them further. I think it's probably just a few parameters that need tweaking. I don't think it meets the threshold for aut...
	5	2025-05-04 12:50	SomeoneElse	To be clear - if you're performing automated tag changes (e.g. from "landuse=something" to some other tag) without any other investigation) then that's an automated edit and needs to be discussed. If you're changing "highway=pirmary" to "highway=primary"...
	6	2025-05-04 16:51	rskedgell ♦1,673	@Numbergod - I've commented on several of your changesets where it's abundantly clear that you accepted Rapid's (incorrect) suggestion without question. That is an undiscussed automated/mechanical edit. You have not had the courtesy to reply to any of my changeset comments, or made an...
	7	2025-05-05 08:47	rskedgell ♦1,673	See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-automated-edit-removal-of-crossing-markings-yes-tags-introduced-in-undiscussed-automated-edits/129614
165646193 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-30 18:02	1	2025-04-30 18:02	SomeoneElse	A web search right now (Google or DDG) only finds (a) OSM (b) SABRE and (c) other user-contributed data such as "Litter on slip road verge. Ducker Holt Interchange, Marr, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, England, DN5 7AS, United Kingdom".
165473288 by hexplore @ 2025-04-26 16:25	1	2025-04-27 13:23	SomeoneElse	Hello, I wonder if you might be able to fill in some of the gaps that there are in https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=6490318 ? (you can use https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6490318 to "re-analyse" after fixing some to see what is left) Best Regards, ...
	2	2025-04-27 17:11	hexplore ♦10	Hi Andy, thanks a lot for catching that, it's fixed now.
	3	2025-04-27 21:49	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
	4	2025-04-28 10:10	hexplore ♦10	Oh actually I meant to ask, how did you notice? Sounds like there may be something useful for me to bookmark.
	5	2025-04-28 11:51	SomeoneElse	Here's the diary entry: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/397310 when one changes a cron job on the server that has the database for https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html sends me an email if relations might have a new gap, like Change in relation components f...
165514799 by JamJar II @ 2025-04-27 16:50	1	2025-04-27 16:55	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
164812350 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-04-11 11:54	1	2025-04-26 16:18	motogs ♦28	The spellings of 2 stops corrected in changeset 165472874 following survey and photos
	2	2025-04-27 13:20	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
165466061 by michaelinredhill @ 2025-04-26 13:32	1	2025-04-27 13:05	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like this edit might have created a gap in the outer way of 8815682, the High Weald National Landscape relation. I've joined it up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165504890#map=20/51.1964417/0.1558513 . You can check relations by using the "validate" ...
165493411 by JamJar II @ 2025-04-27 07:55	1	2025-04-27 12:54	SomeoneElse	Hello, a quick question about the Rob Roy Way: There's a bit of a gap currently at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/189465#map=18/56.527225/-4.111209 . Do you know if that's deliberate (maybe the bridge can't be used for some reason) or accidental and just needs joining up? B...
	2	2025-04-27 16:45	JamJar II ♦17	Hi Andy, Looks like, after splitting that section to allow the braid, I missed the re-adding. I will fix that now! Thanks for spotting! James
	3	2025-04-27 16:51	JamJar II ♦17	Ok, should be fixed now at Ardtalnaig. Let me know if I have missed anything else.
163844681 by Demi God Perseus @ 2025-03-20 04:59	1	2025-04-25 14:33	SomeoneElse	Is this definitely open? Other sources suggest it may have closed late last year. Hopefully it has reopened :)
	2	2025-04-25 14:48	Demi God Perseus ♦1	Thank you for your interest hopefully as a Bitcoiner. We have been making repair and cleaning since 30th of December 2024. It is our intention to open in maybe 2 to 3 weeks on a limited basis as we have much work to carry out on the rest of the property. Initially we intend opening 10 am to 3 pm Mo...
	3	2025-04-25 15:21	SomeoneElse	Best of luck, and I'm sure I'll call in once you've opened. Today I'll have to carry on to the Cross Hills tap...
156420924 by JassKurn @ 2024-09-10 04:28	1	2025-04-18 10:49	SomeoneElse	You didn't add it originally, but have you any idea what sort of building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51583113 is? It does match OS OpenData but doesn't match Bing imagery, suggesting that something might have been rebuilt in its place?
	2	2025-04-23 13:12	JassKurn ♦168	Hi, In summary, very large and very old outbuilding. Thick stone wall with corrugated rood. Typcial historic farm outbuilding found on Dartmoor. Associated with resdiential house to east which is missing from OSM. I do know the area, and ironically have been delayed answering because I'v...
	3	2025-04-24 17:25	SomeoneElse	Thanks - makes sense. I've changed it to "farm_auxiliary".
165242563 by mstrbrid @ 2025-04-21 14:18	1	2025-04-24 11:47	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello, It looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1379326419 had been accidentally missed from NCN4 - I've added it back. Cheers, Andy
	2	2025-04-24 11:54	mstrbrid ♦52	Cheers, looks like I'll have to do the same for the EV1 route when I get back to JOSM today. That'll teach me for trying to use Vespucci!
	3	2025-04-24 12:01	SomeoneElse	EV1 should be OK here now: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=9540148 . Also EV2 http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=5479822 .
	4	2025-04-24 13:57	mstrbrid ♦52	Brill, thank you
45233605 by Will Russack @ 2017-01-17 04:56	1	2023-12-20 18:25	SomeoneElse	Hello, I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 7(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228759987 (and also on a couple of other changes too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google...
	2	2025-04-24 10:13	SomeoneElse	Thanks for updating this to say that the change was based on local knowledge.
50290961 by KaizaWolf @ 2017-07-14 18:34	1	2023-12-20 18:31	SomeoneElse	Hello, I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 6(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/507631409 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's lic...
	2	2025-04-24 10:09	SomeoneElse	Thanks for confirming local knowledge here in the update to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/507631409/history . (to anyone else spotting this - it's clearly visible on OSM-compatible imagery too). Local knowledge I presume also applies to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/498577935/history ...
16143753 by obvdosm @ 2013-05-15 19:50	1	2023-12-20 18:58	SomeoneElse	Hello, I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191593922 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's li...
	2	2025-04-24 09:50	SomeoneElse	Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165369722 and redacted
165307794 by TheSwavu @ 2025-04-22 23:46	1	2025-04-23 11:16	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
114504522 by Narod @ 2021-12-03 03:20	1	2025-04-16 00:33	SomeoneElse	It looks like something has gone a bit wrong here - the merge of the building and the roof has created https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13505281/history which is "building=roof;yes".
	2	2025-04-18 09:44	Narod ♦3	Thanks for spotting, have corrected that now. Is it maybe better to actually have them split up though? They're both part of the petrol station but they are unique structures so to speak
	3	2025-04-21 15:58	SomeoneElse	There are a few options - one is to keep them as a multipolygon but to remove the "building" tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13505281/history and add "building=yes" to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152963307 and "building=roof" to https://www.openstr...
165231622 by BCNorwich @ 2025-04-21 10:30	1	2025-04-21 12:51	SomeoneElse	I'd be really helpful to be a bit more descriptive in changeset comments - "tweak areas" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here as this is actually a revert using JOSM's revert plugin...
158533987 by extua @ 2024-10-30 10:16	1	2025-04-18 23:03	SomeoneElse	Hello, Should https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1329335285 perhaps be "operator=SSE" rather than building=sse"? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-04-21 07:54	extua ♦5	hi Andy, yes that sounds correct, can you change it?
	3	2025-04-21 11:51	SomeoneElse	Thanks - done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165235237
137254798 by chris_debian @ 2023-06-12 17:59	1	2025-04-19 23:19	SomeoneElse	Hello, I'm a bit confused by the change here. Previously https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/881142231/history was an area runway and it didn't have a linear component. The MR challenge said to add the linear runway and change the area to area:aeroway=runway, but you didn't do that -...
64531804 by MichaelCollinson @ 2018-11-15 14:32	1	2025-04-18 18:24	SomeoneElse	Hello, What is a "building=barb"? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/644918873#map=20/54.1568336/-2.1386904&layers=H Cheers, Andy
	2	2025-04-19 15:51	MichaelCollinson ♦57	Andy, corrected now ("barn"). Thanks. Mike
	3	2025-04-19 16:10	SomeoneElse	Thanks - obvious really!
158935998 by beza208 @ 2024-11-09 14:18	1	2025-04-19 05:09	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think that something gone a bit wrong here. After this changeset, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1287508458/history is aligned with the area of the agricultural building visible on aerial imagery, but the building type is "house (site of)" and the name seems a bit odd for an ...
141210360 by b-unicycling @ 2023-09-13 12:54	1	2023-10-08 23:32	VictorIE ♦971	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278367882 building=cin ? Cimena?
	2	2023-10-09 00:44	b-unicycling ♦256	Very good question. No idea.
	3	2025-04-18 18:02	SomeoneElse	I've set it back to yes :)
	4	2025-04-18 19:51	VictorIE ♦971	:)
153748321 by pmpjoseph @ 2024-07-09 14:55 Active block	1	2025-04-18 10:41	SomeoneElse	Hello, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! You've set https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1272898465/history to "building=closed". If it's still a pub building but the pub is closed, more appropriate would be "building=pub" and "disused:amenity=pub". Best Regards,\...
164098263 by gomedia91 @ 2025-03-25 21:38	1	2025-04-17 21:21	SomeoneElse	I'm guessing that "building=yesrunning_or_walking_while_listening_to_some_music_or_a_podcast_can_get_you_into_a_great_rhythm_-_please_just_be_careful_that_it_doesn’t_end_up_distracting_you._when_crossing_the_road,_temporarily_remove_your_headphones_and_avoid_interacting_with_your_ph&...
164946860 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-04-14 16:16	1	2025-04-17 11:48	SomeoneElse	Oops - I think that this might have created a gap in the Thames Down Link path - you can see that at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/115934#map=20/51.2696199/-0.3117511 . Are you OK to fill in the gap, or would you need any pointers to help doing that? Cheers, Andy
	2	2025-04-17 12:52	NTTrailsMEE ♦3	Apologies, have fixed that now!
	3	2025-04-17 13:29	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
160665569 by ruph @ 2024-12-27 08:24	1	2025-04-15 23:32	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello, Lots of the houses in this changeset are "building=semidetached_house100752" - I suspect that is a typo? Regards, Andy
	2	2025-04-16 07:39	ruph ♦5	Thank you very much for the hint. Yes, that is definitely a typo. How can I quickly and easily find the corresponding objects?
	3	2025-04-16 13:21	SomeoneElse	I was just looking at the rare values at https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:britain-and-ireland/keys/building#values . For example, for semidetached_house100752, a regular worldwide overpass query https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/22pe will work - you can zoom in and review the data and, if a simple &...
	4	2025-04-18 09:18	ruph ♦5	Through the overpass query the objects were quickly identified. Thank you again for the helpful hint and the useful tips.
162203550 by recrayon @ 2025-02-06 11:07	1	2025-04-14 11:19	SomeoneElse	Hello recrayon, You might like to join the discussion about naming oceans etc. at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/looking-for-the-pacific-ocean/128699 . You've said "as per wiki page", but which page, and where was the public discussion around that? I can see arguments on bot...
	2	2025-04-14 23:26	Matija Nalis ♦119	Given the node on which name tag was removed, referenced wiki is likely https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=ocean - but I haven't really seen a discussion on the issue either
164879083 by NFZANMNIM @ 2025-04-13 04:47	1	2025-04-13 05:41	MelancholicSlav ♦23	Can you explain how you are deriving the Persian names of places in Vietnam? Is there a source you are using?
	2	2025-04-13 06:02	NFZANMNIM ♦74	unfortunately there's really no Persian sources in existence on vietnam, at most there's tourist websites covering Phu Quoc Island, Hanoi, Saigon... I am doing a systematic and consistent transliteration into Persian (including some judgements to match Vietnamese phonology. For example &qu...
	3	2025-04-13 08:20	SomeoneElse	Hello - please do not make up names by transliteration in this way. Only map names that actually exist. If a data consumer wants to transliterate names, they can.
	4	2025-04-13 09:39	NFZANMNIM ♦74	I don't agree, most (almost all) of the relationships I am updating, have Korean names written in the same way by other users (systematic and simple transliteration). Many of these places have Chinese inputs too, not from external sources but from cross-checking characters (done by other users)...
	5	2025-04-13 13:11	SomeoneElse	@NFZANMNIM What some wikipedia project does is irrelevant here. In fact, many data projects do link to wikidata's various language names via wikidata links - that is a perfectly sensible approach. The OSM wiki is clear: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Transliteration . There are ...
	6	2025-04-14 04:29	NFZANMNIM ♦74	my point with korean was that i am not doing something new and unique. i'm doing what korean language users have done in updating the information in this area, for persian.
	7	2025-11-28 05:20	Minh Nguyen ♦591	Every language has its longstanding conventions. Vietnam and Korea have a shared linguistic heritage as part of the Sinosphere. Transcriptions between the CJKV orthographies are normal, expected, and standardized – not an ad hoc guess by someone sitting in an armchair halfway around the world....
164825629 by Alex McKee @ 2025-04-11 16:56	1	2025-04-12 10:31	SomeoneElse	Hello, Thanks for this. I'm guessing that the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69312#map=18/51.828983/-2.215376 is just "awaiting survey following completion of new housing estate" or similar? The view of the ROWmaps data (green lines at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/ma...
	2	2025-04-12 12:17	Alex McKee ♦6	Hi Andy, Yes, the Glevum Way across Winneycroft Farm is currently unclear. The order that suspended the footpaths created temporary rights of way around the edges of one of the fields but the Glevum Way itself hasn't yet been rerouted. I will be re-surveying the footpath between Painswick Ro...
	3	2025-04-12 18:04	Alex McKee ♦6	Just a note that I resurveyed EUL 22 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164866807 and found somewhat mixed results on the ground. There are GW stickers on the temporary fencing showing part of the route but not other parts. It still runs across the small paddock between Winneycroft Lane and the...
	4	2025-04-12 18:35	SomeoneElse	Thanks - these things do sometimes get forgotten.
164506278 by kjm1511 @ 2025-04-04 12:39	1	2025-04-04 12:41	NeisBot ♦3,498	Hi kjm1511, welcome to OSM! Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including: - 8 highway(s) Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?\...
	2	2025-04-04 12:43	kjm1511 ♦1	These deletions are intentional, please remove.
	3	2025-04-04 18:29	NeisReview ♦1,470	Thank you for your private message and also confirming that your deletions were intentional. However, do you know the following OSM wiki page? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
	4	2025-04-05 02:07	MassCartog ♦254	This change set along with the other two 164506799 164506908 look disastrous. kjm1511 Did you mean to leave random trail segments floating in the middle of the woods? also there are a TON of places trails almost meet, but are not connected. Looks like you took a hack saw to the trail network breakin...
	5	2025-04-09 14:43	MassCartog ♦254	Thanks for fixing!
	6	2025-04-12 14:55	SomeoneElse	Hello, Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We've often worked with land managers about helping understand why "just deleting the data" may not be the best approach. The first and most obvious reason is that someone who doesn't know the history might just "re add...
164439187 by Thosewhoknow @ 2025-04-02 20:46	1	2025-04-03 13:12	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think that this change might have caused a problem with a few relations. I've mentioned it on the forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/relation-breakage-on-the-coastline-northeast-of-swords/128284 . To be clear, this absolutely isn't your fault - the problem is (a) the...
	2	2025-04-03 22:26	Thosewhoknow ♦5	I made an attempt to fix a few of them just now, and I’ll do more tomorrow. Sorry for that!
	3	2025-04-05 17:38	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
	4	2025-04-06 18:29	Thosewhoknow ♦5	I think I’ve fixed all the issues now, or at least most of them.
	5	2025-04-12 14:37	SomeoneElse	I think everything that was expected to reappear did, thanks.
164832131 by VictorIE @ 2025-04-11 20:04	1	2025-04-12 09:38	SomeoneElse	It looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1376867539/history was accidentally created as a duplicate way of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366119186 in this changeset and as well as fixing some invalid relation that created others ("5446375 \| Miltonsfields" fell out of the databas...
	2	2025-04-12 19:12	VictorIE ♦971	Thank you
164833829 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 21:04	1	2025-04-11 21:35	SomeoneElse	Also a bit of cycleway near York college
164473483 by freakonature @ 2025-04-03 16:24	1	2025-04-11 15:09	SomeoneElse	Hello, I've filled in a gap in the National Forest Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3748275#map=17/52.667166/-1.311819 . Does that look OK? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-04-11 15:15	freakonature ♦1	that's great thanks, mine were very rough!
	3	2025-04-11 19:26	trigpoint ♦2,503	Hello Andy asked me to use my local knowledge and look at his fix to the Leicestershire Round. What I have spotted is that you have changed the track around the reservoir to a footway. This isn't really accurate, it can be used by service vehicles and mobility scooters. Footway implies someth...
	4	2025-04-11 19:44	freakonature ♦1	Ah apologies, I misunderstood the definitions. Would you like me to restore them or are you guys sorting that? Tom
	5	2025-04-11 21:23	trigpoint ♦2,503	Hi Tom I am happy to fix it. There are a few other things I can fix at the same time. Cheers Phil
	6	2025-04-12 07:00	freakonature ♦1	Hi Phil Just letting you know I have reverted it back to a track, but feel free to double check and fix those other things Tom
	7	2025-04-12 12:17	trigpoint ♦2,503	Hi Tom Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12716223148 really a kissing gate blocking the entire track? A kissing gate alongside a vehicle gate seems much more likely. Thanks Phil
	8	2025-04-12 14:37	freakonature ♦1	Yes, you are correct. Should it be mapped as two separate nodes or just the one? Apologies for any mistakes, I'm still relatively new to all this, so feel free to keep correcting me! Thanks Tom
164819689 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 14:42	1	2025-04-11 14:55	SomeoneElse	See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 .
164819730 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 14:42	1	2025-04-11 14:55	SomeoneElse	See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 .
164819986 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 14:48	1	2025-04-11 14:55	SomeoneElse	See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 .
164820160 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-04-11 14:53	1	2025-04-11 14:55	SomeoneElse	See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 .
164819850 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2025-04-11 14:45	1	2025-04-11 14:55	SomeoneElse	See discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164484446 .
164784198 by VLD292 @ 2025-04-10 19:11	1	2025-04-11 14:30	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
164587951 by Thosewhoknow @ 2025-04-06 12:15	1	2025-04-11 14:28	SomeoneElse	Thanks! Both "Diocese of Dublin" have reappeared.
164638210 by Balli Abokor @ 2025-04-07 14:35	1	2025-04-09 23:08	SomeoneElse	Hello Balli Abokor, We'd love to have your point of view in the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-update-and-include-somalia-s-newest-state-in-the-map/128229 about the admin_level=4 objects in this area. You can login there with your OSM account. Best Regards, Andy ...
164566414 by citrula @ 2025-04-05 19:55	1	2025-04-05 20:40	Parrot Overhead ♦1	Is there a tutorial on how to add an area based bysiness to the map? In otherwords, we do not have a storefront and do not want to impose on another business.
	2	2025-04-06 06:48	Allison P ♦1,141	OSM is a map of what's on the ground, not a business directory.
	3	2025-04-08 22:16	SomeoneElse	Hello Parrot Overhead, What Allison P says is entirely correct - things that don't have a physical storefront (or other things that don't exist in the physical world) don't belong in OSM at all. If you have more questions and would like to discuss it with the community in general, h...
164544480 by AndyC79 @ 2025-04-05 10:29	1	2025-04-05 17:22	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
164484446 by Upper Rusheen @ 2025-04-03 21:50	1	2025-04-04 11:14	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think that this change might have accidentally deleted part of some townlands - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4211826 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4189619 . Do you need help fixing these? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-04-04 11:41	Upper Rusheen ♦1	Yes please Andy.
	3	2025-04-04 12:12	SomeoneElse	OK - that's now done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164504900 . I just added the missing relations to the stretch of untagged way in the gap, and checked that the relations were valid with JOSM's validator (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/406398 for th...
164427577 by AndyC79 @ 2025-04-02 15:43	1	2025-04-04 11:52	SomeoneElse	Hello, There's a bit of a gap in the Mercian Way cycle route (NCN 45) at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/22602#map=18/51.072704/-1.797525 - I wondered if you knew where it went there? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-04-04 19:39	AndyC79 ♦1	So you now cycle through the coach park and then rejoin the route on the other side of the coach park. It's a short section on the road so I couldn't mark it as a cycle route. If there is a better way of marking it, let me know.
	3	2025-04-04 19:40	AndyC79 ♦1	I'm gonna looking into it in more detail tomorrow. Also wondering if they've just moved it to the other side of the river... Will see what I can find out. Everything has changed in that area.
	4	2025-04-05 10:37	AndyC79 ♦1	OK, linked up all of the routes properly again!
164452845 by NTMurlough @ 2025-04-03 08:28	1	2025-04-04 11:11	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think that this change might have made a few relations invalid because they fell out of a rendering database last night - they crossed over each other so that they were no longer valid polygons. I fixed them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164502548 and added a new node to re...
164393372 by 5155 @ 2025-04-01 20:42	1	2025-04-03 11:13	SomeoneElse	Hello 5155 and welcome to OSM, What was the source of for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1373870321 ? It looks barely visible on Bing or ESRI imagery. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-04-03 13:29	5155 ♦2	Hi, Andy Yes, all changes are made based on the most up-to-date ESRI imagery. Regards.
	3	2025-04-03 13:35	SomeoneElse	What actually is that area? As I mentioned, for example osm.org/way/1373870321 ? It looks barely visible on Bing or ESRI imagery.
153500189 by Balli Abokor @ 2024-07-03 12:31	1	2025-04-03 09:46	SomeoneElse	Hello, Please join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-update-and-include-somalia-s-newest-state-in-the-map/128229 to discuss the relation deleted here. Best Regards, Andy Townsend, On behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
164345097 by BarryMyles @ 2025-03-31 19:05	1	2025-04-02 13:02	SomeoneElse	I think that this might have accidentally created a gap in the Norfolk AONB https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9471593 - I've rejoined it again.
	2	2025-04-02 18:22	BarryMyles ♦14	Oops, that was definitely me, and extremely clumsy. Terribly sorry and thanks for your quick fix.
	3	2025-07-01 08:42	Pink Duck ♦163	Why add ' Village Sign' suffix to man_made village_sign name nodes? It’s not verifiable on ground.
164364458 by rajdhani @ 2025-04-01 09:03	1	2025-04-01 09:43	SomeoneElse	Hello, Please contact the DWG by email at data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2023050810000254] changeset 164364458" so that we can add you to the ongoing discussion about this. Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group
	2	2025-04-01 16:08	vtrtsxlegend ♦22	Hi SomeoneElse, I will send the amail proposed by you so that I can be added to that discussion but also that I can share any information or discussion we then have regarding this issue.
163238150 by okwithmydecay @ 2025-03-05 10:16	1	2025-03-29 10:55	SomeoneElse	Just wondered - how do you check that this isn't dedicated as a common?
	2	2025-03-29 11:39	okwithmydecay ♦36	Good question, and to be honest I can't remember how I determined this one. When it has a name, it's possible to do some online research to find out. Are you familiar with this area?
	3	2025-03-29 12:27	SomeoneElse	I'm not familiar with this area - I'm hoping that you were! I'm always puzzled by "what is officially a common and what isn't". In some case it's obviously signed as such on the ground (and you might have get some bylaws posted - one near me has that). Part of a...
	4	2025-03-29 16:00	okwithmydecay ♦36	There is https://www.openaccess.naturalengland.org.uk/ and looking at the Woolton area there is no "access land" Though, I am not sure if we can use that as a data source?
	5	2025-03-31 00:06	SomeoneElse	Despite those maps being "© Crown Copyright and database right 2024" I believe that I've seen similar data released under OGL (and hence licence-compatible). I'm a bit confused by what I see at both "Natural England - Open Access maps" and "CROW Section 4 Con...
164294216 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-30 16:07	1	2025-03-30 16:09	SomeoneElse	Not sure what the letting policy is; I'm guessing it's relatively short term and therefore would benefit from some sort of tourism tag; I local might want to add that.
164292673 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-30 15:33	1	2025-03-30 15:36	SomeoneElse	To contact the DWG about this edit, please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2025032810000494] Clifton Lane". Note that "primary" was backed up by both OS OpenData StreetView (from 2016) and also last year's OS OpenMap Local, both of which are lic...
163324578 by Birchell @ 2025-03-07 12:03	1	2025-03-08 12:21	kartler175 ♦567	Your updates have probably failed: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-63.76396&lat=44.62007&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersectin...
	2	2025-03-08 12:34	Birchell ♦2	my updates appear to still be present, im not done yet lots to do updating the natural elements of five bridge lakes wilderness area. im attempting to better distinguish the natural landscape and remove the automated layout, however any assistance is appreciated
	3	2025-03-08 12:36	Birchell ♦2	fairly new to the mapping of natural features. ive added and edited plenty of hiking trails, but any assistance or guidance would help
	4	2025-03-30 15:23	SomeoneElse	Editing CanVec-inspired relations is always a challenge - I mean, just look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1100815 :) It looks like iD didn't flag anything up here (which is not entirely a surprise). One thing that you may be able to do immediately after the edit is to check affect...
164106876 by Flynn Marquardt @ 2025-03-26 06:21	1	2025-03-30 12:07	SomeoneElse	Thanks for fixing this. For info, there is still an issue with some of the other relations here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting tha...
164073526 by dmgroom_ct @ 2025-03-25 11:54	1	2025-03-26 05:51	vricciardulli ♦25	Hello dmgroom_ct, I noticed that this changeset broke the relation between County Dublin (R282800) and Dublin. Are you sure your changes were correct?
	2	2025-03-26 10:06	dmgroom_ct ♦51	I'm pretty sure it was changes before mine which broke the relation. When I fixed overlapping coastline issues in this area I maintained relation members on the ways I directly edited.
	3	2025-03-26 11:38	vricciardulli ♦25	In any case, this changeset fixed it https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164106876#map=19/53.260963/-6.110816&layers=N
	4	2025-03-26 20:37	SomeoneElse	Just for info - a bit of a curate's egg, this one: it looks like this changeset fixed one (part of a number affected by a different change by someone else last week) and broke two: 11a12 > -15480473 \| Killiney DED 1971 126d126 < -13061512 \| Killiney ED 1901 169d168 < -124983...
	5	2025-03-30 12:05	SomeoneElse	For completeness, there is still an issue here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting that people work together there.
163924121 by brianh @ 2025-03-21 20:50	1	2025-03-22 15:32	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think that this edit has broken some relations in Dublin: < -10709165 \| Monkstown Parish < -8851327 \| Holy Trinity Kingstown Parish 1900 < -8856889 \| Diocese of Dublin 1900 < -11298801 \| Province of Dublin < -15480473 \| Killiney DED 1971 < -12498372...
	2	2025-03-30 12:05	SomeoneElse	For completeness, there is still an issue here. Since at least 4 people are fixing things, I've posted in the Irish forum at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coastline-and-relation-breakage-in-killiney-south-of-dublin/128102 suggesting that people work together there.
164227255 by Dafo43 @ 2025-03-28 21:10	1	2025-03-30 11:14	SomeoneElse	I think that the merge of the ways to make https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323221895/history makde a couple of townlands invalid polygons; I split it again in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164282607 . To be clear it might not have been this changeset; this was just the most recent one t...
	2	2025-03-30 17:45	Dafo43 ♦35	Thanks, been making a lot of changes so I would expect to have made a few mistakes.
163261711 by OldManCelli @ 2025-03-05 21:13	1	2025-03-29 11:03	SomeoneElse	Hello, What was "invalid" that led to the change here? The comment just says "Fixed an invalid way." which does not really explain anything. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-03-29 16:05	OldManCelli ♦96	It had a self intersection. So I converted it to a relation with two members. One for outer and one for inner.
163170435 by MPFG @ 2025-03-03 17:08	1	2025-03-29 10:49	SomeoneElse	Hello MPFG, It'd be great if the changeset comment here was a bit more descriptive, such as "added buildings to a suspiciously empty area in the east of Glasgow" Best Regards, Andy
164230732 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-28 23:31	1	2025-03-28 23:35	SomeoneElse	The "one vs four" problem was caused indirectly by the mapping of the former units as "buildings" (possibly by me!). This isn't really correct; there's actually really only one building on each side, and the interior partitions can be moved and removed easily.
164164848 by NTMountainRanger @ 2025-03-27 13:36	1	2025-03-27 13:40	NeisBot ♦3,498	Hi NTMountainRanger, welcome to OSM! Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including: - 2 highway(s) Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by ...
	2	2025-03-27 13:44	NTMountainRanger ♦1	These are intentional changes
	3	2025-03-27 13:53	woodpeck ♦2,493	Hi there, in OSM we do not delete informal trails, instead we mark them approriately. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F for further information. DWG Ticket#2025032710000549
	4	2025-03-27 13:56	NTMountainRanger ♦1	Thanks for coming back to me. While these trails have been in existence for some time they have only recently been marked on the map. They cross what is essentially private land
	5	2025-03-27 13:59	NTMountainRanger ♦1	Working for the National Trust we don't want to promote responsible access to the uplands. That involves not promoting unregulated recreational activity on sensitive habitats
	6	2025-03-27 14:11	NTMountainRanger ♦1	Having read through the linked article I would also point out that there is no on the ground trail in these areas, there are poorly defined routes through these areas of sensitive habitat which if promoted will increase the damage to the protected area. Happy to engage in further conversation on thi...
	7	2025-03-28 08:39	NeisReview ♦1,470	Thanks for your private message and confirming that your deletions were intentional. However, your changeset and map edits have been reverted. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164165510
	8	2025-03-28 12:02	SomeoneElse	@NTMountainRanger the problem with "just deleting" things like this is that it will not have the effect that you want it to have. If someone sees a "missing path" from old imagery, they might just add it back. Your colleagues in England and Wales have worked extensively with OS...
	9	2025-03-28 12:23	NTMountainRanger ♦1	Hi Andy, thanks for the advice. Being new to the platform I wasn't aware of the protocols or possible outworkings of actions taken to edit pathlines. It's good to know these issues have been discussed before. I'll certainly reach out to my English colleagues and see where I get. Many ...
164184808 by Local Update @ 2025-03-27 21:56	1	2025-03-28 11:10	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like this change might have introduced a gap into a couple of townlands - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4204334#map=19/54.816293/-6.130655 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4161726#map=19/54.816293/-6.130655 . Are you able to fill it in or would you like help ...
164187255 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-27 23:35	1	2025-03-27 23:48	SomeoneElse	Near Yarm, from survey 27/3/2025
164127603 by Grannymeg @ 2025-03-26 15:37	1	2025-03-27 11:08	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like this changeset introduced a gap in the "Anglesey National Landscape" relation (10676742). I fixed that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164158424 . If you do find yourself modifying ways that are part of a relation you can check them by following https://w...
164076073 by Wamia Zaman @ 2025-03-25 12:57	1	2025-03-26 20:22	SomeoneElse	Hello Wamia Zaman and welcome to OpenStreetMap! One thing that'd be really helpful would be if you would use descriptive changeset comments that explain to other mappers what you're changing. "#hotosm-project-16289 #OSM_Guatemala #Quetzaltenango #Kaart" is just a bunch of gibbe...
164098464 by OgWasHere @ 2025-03-25 21:45	1	2025-03-26 20:17	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I've also removed the building tag from the outer in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164137615 (it's already on the relation) and moved the wikidata from the outer to the relation.
163918670 by quincylvania @ 2025-03-21 18:07	1	2025-03-23 11:51	SomeoneElse	Probably not an obelisk lol... As ever with these, the answer seems to be "actually a bit more complicated than that". Wikipedia describes it as a "navigation beacon": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldon_Hill , elsewhere https://trigpointing.uk/trig/8861 it's an "Ad...
163476128 by daavoo @ 2025-03-11 09:34	1	2025-03-23 10:16	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163979213 where the changeset comment is: Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163963906 , and see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-mapping-features-with-computer-vision/127790 - reverting some 'AI de...
	2	2025-03-23 10:33	SomeoneElse	Unfortunately I had planned but failed to exclude some of the iD ones: 163476128, 163476238, 163476416, 163476742, 163479939, 163502236, 163502710, 163625364, 163625682, 163680698, 163709426, 163709463, 163748688, 163778513, 163778767, 163778850, 163779017, 163445439, 163445483...
163919727 by quincylvania @ 2025-03-21 18:29	1	2025-03-22 11:12	Kees 59 ♦35	Are you sure about the historic=monument? monument is described as "A memorial object, which is especially large (one can go inside, walk on or through it) or very tall". And node 1840038725 definitely does not comply with that. I believe historic=memorial is better suited for this one....
	2	2025-03-22 13:00	SomeoneElse	https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/817805457/history looks like it should have been sanity-checked out of this change too.
	3	2025-03-22 13:53	quincylvania ♦69	Thank you both for the review. I've fixed those features per your comments.
	4	2025-03-22 14:59	Kees 59 ♦35	Hi again. It might be a good idea to go over this changeset. I picked out 2 changes. One because it rang a bell. I taught I came by the word in the wiki and one because of a weird, at least to me, name. The first one is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2168561999 With the name Cenotaph. If it i...
163941262 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-22 10:53	1	2025-03-22 11:18	SomeoneElse	Also ts1714b
163660724 by wayfarer_boy @ 2025-03-15 17:25	1	2025-03-19 20:28	SomeoneElse	Hello, A couple of relations here now have gaps in them, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3149263#map=17/52.192768/-2.229597 . Do you know where the Three Choirs Way tells people to go if they are going from Worcester to Hereford? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-03-21 15:32	wayfarer_boy ♦1	Thanks for that. I've reconnected the Three Choirs Way here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163911286 and the Severn Way here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163911791
	3	2025-03-21 16:21	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
163854413 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-20 10:14	1	2025-03-20 10:14	SomeoneElse	This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 163851763, 163851833, 163852061, 163852132.
163851833 by wESzim @ 2025-03-20 09:07 Active block	1	2025-03-20 10:14	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163854413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some French schoolkid vandalism
163852061 by wESzim @ 2025-03-20 09:13 Active block	1	2025-03-20 10:14	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163854413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some French schoolkid vandalism
163851763 by wESzim @ 2025-03-20 09:05 Active block	1	2025-03-20 10:14	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163854413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some French schoolkid vandalism
163852132 by wESzim @ 2025-03-20 09:15 Active block	1	2025-03-20 10:14	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163854413 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some French schoolkid vandalism
163729302 by benjamin gsk @ 2025-03-17 12:14	1	2025-03-19 14:12	SomeoneElse	Hello - a quick question about the cycle route at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4026281#map=18/51.308127/-0.614454 - do you know how it gets from the south bank to the north? There's a gap currently. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-03-19 16:04	benjamin gsk ♦2	Hi Andy, The cycle route switches sides without much thought behind it, from east to west the cyclist has to turn up off of the towpath and walk along the narrow pavement of the bridge up the road. There is no marked crossing and then you're back on the cycle route. Even though its crossing a ...
	3	2025-03-19 20:18	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I've edited it and it now looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4026281#map=18/51.308127/-0.614454 - is that OK?
163768352 by Bow-Tie Guy @ 2025-03-18 10:47	1	2025-03-19 14:04	SomeoneElse	Oops - I think that the merging of two bits of bridge into https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176962752 has broken a couple of relations - see for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5986877#map=19/51.905440/-8.962245 . I've no idea if this was deliberately merged or just "somet...
	2	2025-03-19 14:47	Bow-Tie Guy ♦2	I see what happened. Looks like Vespucci just didn't flag it. I've tried to clean that section up a bit to keep the bridge seperate. Can you tell me what you think? Sorry I forgot to add the review request to it.
	3	2025-03-19 20:08	SomeoneElse	Thanks - they have both reappeared: 10713a10714 > -5986877 \| Sleveen East 10725a10727 > -5986752 \| Lackaduff 55670c55672 < (55667 rows) --- > (55669 rows)
163791238 by Yog Sot @ 2025-03-18 20:20	1	2025-03-18 21:35	YomanNH ♦408	https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
	2	2025-03-18 22:54	SomeoneElse	To be honest (and with reference to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163383605 ) I suspect a bit of discussion would have helped here. I'm confused by noexit=yes on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8984377004/history . Presumably this is an unofficial (and hazardous?) pedestrian cros...
	3	2025-03-19 00:47	Yog Sot ♦365	oh wow, so now i'm getting reported everytime? xD This is a crossing that's there since like 30 years i live there. Not going to elaborate on local laws, coz that's spotty and even dear YNH doesnt follow laws in his city mapping. Tho if someone needs to go crazy with tags there, sure...
	4	2025-03-19 01:10	SomeoneElse	Irrespective of local laws, wuld some sort of "hazard" tag make sense? I think that there was some sort of discussion of "iffy" crossings on https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/do-we-really-need-railway-tram-crossing-resp-tram-level-crossing/118987 , but I might be wrong.
	5	2025-03-19 02:09	Yog Sot ♦365	law may disallow crossing a dual carriage way, nontheless if people cross it at that certain route i don't see a reason to not map it. As for tram crossings, they do hold a big value, because you know that you do cross one on your way, coz you know ahead of time that you gotta yeld for instanc...
	6	2025-03-19 10:33	YomanNH ♦408	noexit=yes służy do zupełnie czego innego, niż jest użyte w tym przypadku. Używa się tego na końcu drogi/chodnika/ścieżki itp., która nie ma kontynuacji. Jest to opisane w dokumentacji, którą już wiadomo, że lubisz ignorować: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:noe...
162603777 by (Anonymous) @ 2025-02-17 09:48	1	2025-03-17 19:30	SomeoneElse	Hello EditWatcher, You've deleted a bunch of tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/731989519 including "oneway=no". Does that mean that it _is_ oneway, or something else? Best Regards, Andy
163541226 by b-unicycling @ 2025-03-12 18:42	1	2025-03-13 11:04	SomeoneElse	For info - I removed a couple of extra bits from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6153872 so that it's now just one ring.
	2	2025-03-13 21:17	b-unicycling ♦256	Thanks!
	3	2025-03-13 21:24	SomeoneElse	I think the trick with iD is to always search for the relation number rather than guessing based on the name, because townlands/EDs/whatever can all have similar names...
	4	2025-03-13 21:29	b-unicycling ♦256	I was also working on my laptop with a rather small screen, and at times, it won't show me all the parts of the relation of the townland. I'll just have to leave notes or fixmes in the future and come back and fix the outline in JOSM.
147107117 by plymothian @ 2024-02-05 19:43	1	2025-03-13 15:44	SomeoneElse	Hello, I'm guessing that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1246468471/history might have been a Boots Opticians once, but is now a pet shop? Best Regards, Andy
163540661 by eusty @ 2025-03-12 18:26	1	2025-03-13 10:40	SomeoneElse	Oops - I think that the original A148 he was part of the "outer" of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and there's now a gap in it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9471593#map=14/52.78094/0.45851 . Are you OK to add that back or would you like me to?
	2	2025-03-13 11:48	eusty ♦1	You can do that if you don't mind 😊
	3	2025-03-13 11:55	SomeoneElse	Thanks - done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163566809
163380776 by Wookey @ 2025-03-08 21:50	1	2025-03-12 02:00	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello, There seems to be a bit of an odd spur on a few route relations at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1832946#map=19/51.626375/-1.013466 . Is that a mistake and do they all go to the south, or is there a bit through the field missing? Affected relations can be seen at https://map.ato...
	2	2025-03-12 04:43	Wookey ♦22	The spur to the field gate is not part of any of the routes/relations. The mapping was previously wrong, showing the routes (Ridgeway, Icknield Way etc) going along a track that way, with a parallel footway that was not part of any of these relations. In fact the track through the field no longe...
	3	2025-03-13 11:27	SomeoneElse	Thanks - done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163565825
163548864 by b-unicycling @ 2025-03-12 23:23	1	2025-03-13 11:03	SomeoneElse	Hello, Was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/371619998 removed from https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5518440 deliberately? Previously that relation was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/20hZ , but now it's just two sides of a triangle. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-03-13 21:07	b-unicycling ♦256	Not purposefully, but I was working in iD which is never a good idea for townland relations. I'll have another look.
163548629 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-03-12 23:11	1	2025-03-12 23:27	SomeoneElse	Also ts1708b
163422314 by Constrado @ 2025-03-10 00:54 Active block	1	2025-03-10 01:06	SomeoneElse	Hello, It is clear (see https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/39972557 ) that you disagree with other mappers about road classifications here. Can you explain where you have discussed it with them and persuaded them that your point of view is correct? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-03-10 08:26	Dawid2849 ♦821	Wycofałem tę zmianę, gdyż nie zostala przedyskutowana ze społecznością https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163430787
	3	2025-03-10 13:27	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	"uzasadnionej jako wandalizm w celu mapowania pod siebie" - to jest uzasadnienie tej edycji?
163137756 by Yog Sot @ 2025-03-02 20:52	1	2025-03-02 21:06	theDM ♦156	teraz pokaż mi, gdzie masz obniżony krawężnik przy Shellu względem samej jezdni
	2	2025-03-02 21:18	Yog Sot ♦365	przy szelu połączenie nastapiło, bo nie mozna zrobić od razu całego miasta. krawezniki były zmapowane bliżej skrzyzowania i tam skasowałeś informacje o nich, wypustkach oraz dokładnego typu nawierzchni. Po raz kolejny raz wprowadzasz zmiany bez uprzedniego zapytania się. Rozmawiali�...
	3	2025-03-02 21:39	theDM ♦156	widziałem jak były zmapowane i nie ma tam obniżenia przy samej jezdni. Przejedź się najpierw albo zobacz jak wygląda w terenie naprawdę zamiast trwać w swoich urojeniach.
	4	2025-03-02 21:48	Yog Sot ♦365	przy szelu zarówno chodnik jak i rowerówka zachowują ciągłość, krawężnik obnizony jest dla aut przecinających te ciągi. Natomiast znów pisałem o9 czym innym, a ty o pewno czym innym. Nie rozumiem dlaczego wolisz dyskusję z wiadomościa raz na poł godz/pół dni...
	5	2025-03-02 22:02	theDM ♦156	Ty serio przejdź się tam, zamiast brnąć w swojej fikcji. Krawężnik nie jest obniżony na wjeździe do Shella, a wyjazd masz tylko na Brzechwy. Nie masz pojęcia, jak to wygląda tam w terenie, to się za to nie bierz Już inni pisali, że to raczej kwalifikuje się pod 1 linię. Tak trudno ci...
	6	2025-03-04 13:55	YomanNH ♦408	@theDM: Skoro ta edycja wprowadza fikcję, to może warto ją wycofać?
	7	2025-03-06 16:49	Yog Sot ♦365	Spokojnie, na forum w General talk wiki wiki-proposal bicycle trwa dyskusja, zachęcam do zapoznania się z przedstawionymi przykładami i uzasadnieniami. Gruby temet, sporo literek niestety
	8	2025-03-06 17:14	theDM ♦156	Podaj linka. Swoją drogą, dzisiaj jechałem tamtędy, to od wysokości Myśliwskiej do Nowowiczlińskiej nie masz nawet odmiennego koloru kostki chodnika, więc ten rozdział tym bardziej jest błędny.
	9	2025-03-06 19:33	YomanNH ♦408	> proposal > trwa dyskusja Czyli nic konkretnego nie zostało ustalone. Trzymajmy się w takim razie obowiązującej dokumentacji, a nie propozycji, które może wejdą w życie, a może nie. I też poproszę o linka.
	10	2025-03-06 20:25	Yog Sot ♦365	wejdzcie w te podkategorie proposal, warto się nauczyć forum. A co do wiki, jasno przedstawia dwie mozliwości. tyle samo osób to powiedizało ile udaje, że tego tam nie ma wypierając z egzystencji ;D. I w sumie postępujecie w wiki prawidłowy sposób iz wchodzicie w spó...
	11	2025-03-06 21:02	YomanNH ♦408	Warto to nauczyć się mapować zgodnie z dokumentacją, jaka obowiązuje. A drugi sposób mapowania, czyli dwie osobne linie, jest jasno opisany jako ten, którego należy unikać.
	12	2025-03-06 21:34	theDM ♦156	Dokładnie, może i dwie linie są, ale uchodzą za kontrowersyjne i jest preferowane używanie 1 linii. Tym bardziej, że w większość tego odcinka nie ma nawet odmiennego koloru kostki na styku chodnika i ddr.
	13	2025-03-08 12:21	SomeoneElse	Hello, Andy from the Data Working Group here. Firstly, I'd suggest that everyone takes this this discussion to the forum (a specific topic about this edit). I can see that there are already general discussions there such as https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/zniszczenie-mojej-pracy-nad-inf...
	14	2025-03-08 12:22	SomeoneElse	Cześć, Andy z Data Working Group. Po pierwsze, zasugerowałbym, aby wszyscy przenieśli tę dyskusję na forum (konkretny temat dotyczący tej edycji). Widzę, że są już tam ogólne dyskusje, takie jak https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/zniszczenie-mojej-pracy-nad-infrastruktura-rower...
	15	2025-03-08 12:40	theDM ♦156	Hi Andy, in general these paths aren't separated physically with barriers or grass. It looks like this path: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Witosa_bike_2.jpg/400px-Witosa_bike_2.jpg I can tak some photos on Monday, but stretch from Górnicza to Nowowiczlińsk...
	16	2025-03-08 12:44	theDM ♦156	Even in the same discussion on PL forum most of mappers indicated 1 line as correct. Example in very last replies. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/zniszczenie-mojej-pracy-nad-infrastruktura-rowerowa/125418/177
	17	2025-03-08 13:21	SomeoneElse	@Yog Sot, based on the comments above, can you explain why this was "invalid" and why you reverted it?
	18	2025-03-09 23:38	Yog Sot ♦365	* tactile_pavement has not been remapped in his one-lined style both for curb nodes and footways * crossings dont have information about its markings or traffic island * surface information is vaque on crossings of all type * footway crossings with a cycleway has spotty info if its actually a cr...
	19	2025-03-10 00:15	SomeoneElse	@Yog%20Sot I'm only involved because the DWG received complaints about the way that you rode roughshod over other mappers and just reverted their work, despite it largely following community agreed guidelines. We have given you lots of opportunity to try and find a consensus, and at https://co...
	20	2025-03-10 12:45	Yog Sot ♦365	Oh yeah, i have met a lot of people and community is great, wouldn't be around otherwise. And there are different people fully supporting two-lining and one-lining. In the thread you linked, there are advocats of different methods as well. There is a topic in Polish community section and ther...
63663017 by Russ @ 2018-10-19 00:27	1	2025-03-09 20:02	SomeoneElse	A quick question - are things like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/635829122 above the sea level or below it? I'm guessing the latter?
	2	2025-03-09 22:31	Russ ♦56	They are above the sea - like oil platforms. This is the substation in question: https://dudgeonoffshorewind.co.uk/img/gallery1/construction70.jpg
	3	2025-03-09 22:41	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I was worried that my rendering of "a building in the middle of the North Sea" was wrong!
	4	2025-03-09 22:46	Russ ♦56	I think it makes sense that an offshore `building=*` should be assumed to be above the water unless it has `location=underwater`. Ideally I'd like to show these on OpenInfraMap but it would involve dealing with all buildings, and I'd prefer not to!
163383605 by Yog Sot @ 2025-03-09 00:11	1	2025-03-09 01:10	SomeoneElse	DO NOT DO ANY MORE REVERTS. You will be blocked from the OSM API if you do. Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group.
	2	2025-03-18 21:42	YomanNH ♦408	Yog Sot, czyżbyś użył reverta mimo zakazu? :) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163791238
163106806 by C2L @ 2025-03-02 00:49	1	2025-03-02 13:37	SomeoneElse	Hello - I think that the new bit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1363939186 needs adding to a couple of relations - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1695404#map=19/52.348209/-1.403282 shows the gap in one of them. Best Regards, Andy
162551282 by ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy @ 2025-02-15 21:14	1	2025-02-16 01:58	PierZen ♦276	En observant les chemins et noeuds pour les routes du grand Montréal, on constate que depuis 5-10 ans vous avez effacé a peu près tout ce qui existait et recréé constamment de nouvelles nodes et chemins. Et encore ici, vous effacez des chemins et re-ajoutez. Vous ...
	2	2025-02-16 02:41	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	Bonjour! Je suis associé de recherche à Politechnique Montréal et à la Chaire Mobilité. Mes collègues et moi ajoutons de nombreux lieux d'activité (POIs) manquants ou à mettre à jour, nous ajoutons également les trottoirs pis...
	3	2025-02-16 23:27	PierZen ♦276	Une analyse pour seulement les autoroutes et bretelles d'autoroute dans le grand Montréal indique que ce compte a effacé quelque 9600 chemins (autoroutes et bretelles d'autoroute) depuis le début 2020. Vous dites améliorer la qualité, mais il devient tr...
	4	2025-02-17 21:43	PierZen ♦276	Pour la problématique des chemins effacés / retracés, vous observerez pour notamment les autoroutes en France, Allemagne, Angleterre et USA, que les objets sont conservés souvent depuis 15 ans. Vous avez encore enregistré plusieurs sessions d'édit...
	5	2025-02-17 22:00	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	Je vous ai écrit par message privé. J'attends votre réponse. Merci! Je n'efface jamais explicitement des liens routiers, donc c'est un artefact de l'éditeur ID. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi les mêmes artefacts n'ont pas lieu ailleurs. J...
	6	2025-02-18 17:05	PierZen ♦276	Je suggère d'organiser une discussions sur community.openstreetmap.org où il serait possible pour la communauté OSM et la Chaire Mobilité de faire le point sur la cartographie du réseau routier au Québec, de présenter les problèmes et solu...
	7	2025-02-18 17:32	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	C'est déjà fait. Et la discussion a aussi eu lieu avec des experts des USA et d'Allemagne. Le consensus est de suivre le wiki et les propositions pour placement=transition et lanes:width:start et lanes:width:end. Dans mes derniers changements, je suis à la lettre ces...
	8	2025-02-28 15:38	SomeoneElse	@ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy can you link to where the public discussion happened on c.osm.org?
	9	2025-02-28 15:48	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	Nowadays, I just update the motorway junction transitions to follow the official and proposal wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:placement=transition https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Placement I'm searching for the original discussion. Will put it there as soon a...
	10	2025-02-28 15:54	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	It was a slack thread in #questionable-edits back in 2022. But it is obsolete since we now follow the official wiki on placement=transition.
	11	2025-02-28 17:27	SomeoneElse	Ah, thanks. Slack, obviously, is outside the control of OSMF for archiving for future reference etc., whereas the wiki (hopefully!) should be available for reference until the heat death of the universe...
	12	2025-02-28 17:39	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	Nice! :-)
	13	2025-03-01 21:15	PierZen ♦276	What is the exact status of Tag:placement=transition since it has not been adopted systematically in other countries ? You are the main user adopting this tag and you cannot refer to discussions with the local community. There is not a general adoption of this tag around the world. Statistics show t...
	14	2025-03-01 21:25	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	Status of placement=transition is "in use" not a proposal. I added the proposal in this discussion because it is more detailed and explains the history of why it was added. Placements are the only way we can know which part of the street segments are not aligned with the real lanes, and th...
	15	2025-03-01 21:28	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	If you look here: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/placement=transition#map you will see that the usage of placement=transition is not specific to Quebec, it is used all over the world.
	16	2025-03-02 13:16	SomeoneElse	Given that this sort of thing is of interest to lots of other people, I'd suggest a forum discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ would be a really good idea. In French would be fine - other people can just hit the "translate" button.
	17	2025-03-02 13:55	ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy ♦448	OK, I agree. However, please help me starting the discussion by stating what issues are to be asked to the community. The use of JOSM instead of the iD editor seems hard to enforce because iD is the official editor, for better and for worse, and it is way easier to use for this kind of work (we can ...
	18	2025-03-08 13:14	PierZen ♦276	pour la suite de la discussion voir https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/motorways-and-trunk-roads-completed-and-validated-for-the-whole-montreal-region/126884/4
163047065 by superrache @ 2025-02-28 11:01	1	2025-03-01 10:34	SomeoneElse	Oops, looks like this got added in the middle of the Atlantic and someone had to delete it. Maybe "osmtree" should check that it has sensible lat and long before adding?
163072708 by jajanja3 @ 2025-02-28 23:49	1	2025-02-28 23:50	SomeoneElse	Hello again jajanja3 , Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161257413 , please do use changeset comments that actually explain what you have changed. "Navigation Detail" on its own does not really help anyone.
162522036 by VLD290 @ 2025-02-14 23:35	1	2025-02-16 13:58	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've written "#maproulette" in the comment - does that mean that this change was done as a result of a maproulette challenge? If so, where is that? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-02-24 17:35	VLD290 ♦5	Hey Andy, Here’s the link: https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/52996 Have a great day, Jonathon
	3	2025-02-28 23:17	SomeoneElse	Thanks. Would it be possible to ensure that changesets have some reference to the actual maproulette task? Maproulette tasks tend to be of variable quality, and it's really useful to know which changesets resulted from which one.
163067597 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-28 20:05	1	2025-02-28 20:51	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	2	2025-02-28 21:51	SomeoneElse	I've added two nodes, both of which have pictures: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626336200 is an "Unsuitable for Motors" sign pointing south. There's a picture of the sign. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626377501 is a place where there is _no_ sign on the tra...
	3	2025-02-28 21:57	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	4	2025-02-28 22:02	SomeoneElse	Can you try replying to https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-bot-like-comments-on-changesets/126587/7 in the forum?
	5	2025-02-28 22:09	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
162951932 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-25 22:43	1	2025-02-27 10:22	SomeoneElse	Currently the relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4283214 is just a line with one member https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317689837 ? I'm guessing that "Part of Ausestown" is not actually a thing but "Causestown" is?
	2	2025-02-28 18:08	b-unicycling ♦256	line deleted from relation, relation deleted
	3	2025-02-28 21:39	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
163028674 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-27 21:00	1	2025-02-28 14:47	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	2	2025-02-28 17:39	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	> Why you can create a pub? what was your reason for posting this comment?
	3	2025-02-28 20:30	SomeoneElse	I went in for a beer, and inside it was more like a pub than a bar.
162892444 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-24 13:20	1	2025-02-24 13:21	SomeoneElse	There may also be an "unsuitable..." sign at the top end covering https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46588460 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46588459 , but when I was last there the only signage was at the southeast.
	2	2025-02-24 19:07	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	3	2025-02-24 20:58	SomeoneElse	> There is also an "unsuitable..." sign at the top end Is there? Can you link to a picture of it?
	4	2025-02-26 20:45	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	5	2025-02-26 21:46	SomeoneElse	What, exactly, does the sign say?
	6	2025-02-26 22:25	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	7	2025-02-27 00:07	SomeoneElse	I asked my friend "Eliza" for help and she suggested asking: Is it because you have not got any links there is an unsuitable sign which may found at the top end covering that you came to me?
	8	2025-02-28 14:45	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	9	2025-02-28 17:47	SomeoneElse	pssst: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4645568#map=17/54.232161/-1.201329&layers=N
	10	2025-02-28 20:08	SomeoneElse	There's no sign pointing east down Hambleton Road and Oldstead Bank. There is one pointing south down High Town Bank Road. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163067597 .
163010013 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-27 12:20	1	2025-02-27 13:18	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	2	2025-02-27 13:34	SomeoneElse	Hello, do you mind if I ask a personal question - are you a human?
	3	2025-02-28 06:29	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	4	2025-02-28 13:36	SomeoneElse	Your question "why" was, I believe answered quite fully by the history of the object and the changeset tags here. That's why I asked the question above. May I ask what brought this edit and the others at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NinaNesterovaOSM/changeset_comments to you...
	5	2025-02-28 14:42	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	6	2025-02-28 15:03	SomeoneElse	You're not really explaining yourself very well. I've asked at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-bot-like-comments-on-changesets/126587 - perhaps you could post a comment there?
	7	2025-02-28 16:05	NinaNesterovaOSM Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	8	2025-02-28 17:13	SomeoneElse	Thank you. I still don't understand what you're asking here? I was a shop. It closed. Then it opened again. Then it closed again. Then it opened again. There were at least 3 name changes along the way.
163032715 by jajanja3 @ 2025-02-28 00:19	1	2025-02-28 14:44	SomeoneElse	Hello jajanja3, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161257413 , please do use changeset comments that actually explain what you have changed. "Navigation Detail" on its own does not really help anyone. Best Regards, Andy
162737594 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:56	1	2025-02-20 13:59	MorahT ♦26	This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn Changes to the service road also crosses highway.
	2	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
163052641 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-28 13:27	1	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 162736067, 162736386, 162736504, 162736625, 162736843, 162737594, 162737644, 162795263, 162795676, 162795853, 162818469, 162819929.
162736504 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:24	1	2025-02-20 13:58	MorahT ♦26	This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn
	2	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162736067 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:13	1	2025-02-20 13:57	MorahT ♦26	This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn
	2	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
	3	2025-04-05 06:51	boil frayed candle ♦1	The thought process here was probably a misunderstanding of OSM, as they put the hydrological source of the Thames. What they don't understand, is OSM is about what agencies actually call it, not about obscure scientific facts. So, they should have known more about OSM before doing this, becaus...
162818469 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-22 14:28	1	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162736625 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:28	1	2025-02-20 13:59	MorahT ♦26	This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn
	2	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162795676 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-21 20:35	1	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162736386 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:21	1	2025-02-20 14:06	MorahT ♦26	If there is no valid reason for changing the name from "River Thames" to "Thames Winterbourne", this changeset needs to be reverted.
	2	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162795853 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-21 20:42	1	2025-02-21 21:36	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! You've changed a number of river names here, and people are wondering what the reason for that change was. The river in OSM previously reflected the view in other older maps, such as OS OpenData StreetView from 2016 https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map...
	2	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162736843 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:34	1	2025-02-20 13:59	MorahT ♦26	This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn
	2	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162819929 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-22 15:07	1	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162737644 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-20 11:58	1	2025-02-20 13:59	MorahT ♦26	This changeset needs to be reverted. This should be the River Churn from Seven Springs [51.85110, -2.05040] until it joins the River Thames at Cricklade [51.64498, -1.85336]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Churn
	2	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162795263 by gawssiybbes @ 2025-02-21 20:18	1	2025-02-28 13:27	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163052641 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes to the River Thames - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162736067 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17316
162979285 by AdrianLangtry @ 2025-02-26 16:31	1	2025-02-27 10:15	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	It looks like one of these changes broke at least one relation - "12458163 \| Kilconny ED". I've fixed it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163005426 - does everything still look OK?
	2	2025-02-27 10:27	AdrianLangtry ♦17	Sorry about that, I think it appeared to be a duplicate line where the river area meets the lake and I removed the wrong line there, otherwise I'm not sure what could have happened. Looks good now
	3	2025-02-27 10:30	SomeoneElse	Thanks
162578565 by PonasJonas @ 2025-02-16 16:48	1	2025-02-16 18:45	Tomas Straupis ♦2,002	Laba diena. Šitas dviračių takas per daug integruotas į patį kelią, kad būtų žymimas kaip atskiras vektorius. Todėl jis atskiru vektoriumi ir nebuvo pažymėtas. Ir nereikia jo atskiru vektoriumi žymėti.
	2	2025-02-22 12:00	SomeoneElse	@kkuzmickas Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! How and whether to map "cycling on the sidewalk" infrastructure is a hotly-debated topic within OpenStreetMap. There are cycling advocates that argue that everywhere it is allowed it should be mapped separately, and there are those (like To...
	3	2025-02-22 12:00	SomeoneElse	@kkuzmickas Sveiki ir sveiki atvykę į OpenStreetMap! Kaip ir ar pažymėti „važinėjimo dviračiu šaligatviu“ infrastruktūrą, yra karštai diskutuojama OpenStreetMap tema. Yra dviračių šalininkų, kurie teigia, kad visur, kur tai leidžiama, reikėtų pažymė...
	4	2025-02-22 13:06	Tomas Straupis ♦2,002	My simple comment is "refer to local community". This has been discussed quite a lot. The statement I made is from Lithuanian mapping community, not mine alone. I have no idea how Andy is being able to "calculate the popularity", especially when popular is not the same as profess...
	5	2025-02-22 13:11	SomeoneElse	@Tomas perhaps you could link to the public forum where this discussion has been taking place?
	6	2025-02-22 13:17	Tomas Straupis ♦2,002	Discussions have been done in mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/admindb/talk-lt years ago (in Lithuanian of course). Also in our meetings in a pub (not documented, of course), we sometimes get more than 10 participants even from outside of Vilnius, so it is very representative. It also ha...
	7	2025-02-22 15:15	SomeoneElse	> Discussions have been done in mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/admindb/talk-lt years ago Thanks - do you have a link to the thread?
	8	2025-02-22 15:35	Tomas Straupis ♦2,002	No, too much info there. But kkuzmickas reads Lithuanian, so he can go through, there might be some other important or interesting information for him. There were a number of cycling related discussion as we were discussing cycling schema to use, maps products to make etc. If he still has questions ...
	9	2025-02-22 15:42	somehundred ♦109	I just want to point out that the provided mapillary footage is outdated. Here's a new one from July 2024: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.6729267&lng=25.2726497&z=19.9&pKey=880819717313713&focus=photo&x=0.08102023366484773&y=0.6206059317455411&zoom=0.807537012...
	10	2025-02-22 15:56	SomeoneElse	Indeed - and I have to agree that even to someone (like me!) who tends to map roadside infrastructure as "part of the road", https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.673459200000025&lng=25.272460000000024&z=19.9&pKey=522626237131593&focus=photo&x=0.9962062785249548&y=0...
	11	2025-02-24 22:27	SomeoneElse	Following the complaint to the DWG Ticket#2025022210000194 and the discussion above, I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162910810 . To reiterate, I suspect that, based on the sources above _most_ OSM mappers (even ones like me who often map such infrastructure as par...
	12	2025-02-25 06:22	Tomas Straupis ♦2,002	Ok, I see. So once again you, Andy, do not consult local community, but rather make your own decisions and in this case leave after yourself broken data - now cycleway is double-tagged. No, I will not discuss it here anymore. We will keep discussion in our closed forums away from incompetence of DWG...
	13	2025-02-25 18:10	PonasJonas ♦1	Well, I believe 'thank you's are in order for the exceptionally, ahem, 'warm' welcome. I marked the aforementioned bicycle path as separate structure, rather than part of the road, solely from my personal expertise, since I live in close proximity to the object of discussion.\...
162448938 by unyny @ 2025-02-13 00:09	1	2025-02-13 06:31	JakubS ♦23	Czy mógłbyś wyjaśnić dlaczego cały czas zmieniasz Krasówkę z waterway=stream na waterway=river skoro na tym odcinku jest tak wąskim ciekiem, że nie kwalifikuje się na river, patrz: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162232530#map=14/51.21258/19.28641
	2	2025-02-14 12:49	unyny ♦6	Zasadniczo rzeka od strumienia różni się powierzchnią zlewni, a nie szerokością. Choć niektóre definicje również ten parametr uwzględniają, niemniej tyczy się on maksymalnej szerokości jaki dany ciek osiąga, a nie tejże w jakimś konkretnym miejscu. Inaczej mó...
	3	2025-02-14 13:56	JakubS ♦23	Nie jest to tylko "moje" ale społeczności OSM, na Wiki jest to wyraźnie opisane, podobnie jak w wielu dyskusjach na forum. Każda rzeka u swoich źródeł jest wąskim ciekiem, który bez problemów można przekroczyć i powinna być tagowana jako waterway=stream na po...
	4	2025-02-15 07:04	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	". Inaczej mówiąc: rzeka jest rzeką, a strumień strumieniem na całej swojej długości, od źródeł do ująca, niezależnie od miejsca swojego biegu. Definicja osm jest tutaj niejasna, bo w żaden sposób nie precyzuje, czy odnosi się ona do cieku na całej jego długo�...
	5	2025-02-15 07:06	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	"rzeka jest rzeką, a strumień strumieniem na całej swojej długości, od źródeł do ująca, niezależnie od miejsca swojego biegu" może w OSM początkowe odcinki zaznaczane są waterway=stream niezależnie zgodnie z sytuacją w danym miejscu niezależnie od tego co jest d...
	6	2025-02-15 07:06	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	Chyba że źródło jest na tyle duże że od razu mamy coś większego od strumienia.
	7	2025-02-15 17:12	unyny ♦6	Właśnie tak to funkcjonuje w realnym świecie - rzeka zaczyna się od źródła, na początku jest strumieniem, potem dobiera zamienia się w porządną rzekę (chyba że w międzyczasie wpadnie do jakiegoś innego cieku/zbiornika). To co ty opisujesz jest próbą trzymania się na si�...
	8	2025-02-15 17:37	unyny ♦6	czemu sądzisz że definicja OSM jest niejasna? zdecydowanie odnosi się do danego miejsca, która dokumentacja tego nie precyzuje jasno? Bo sprawia wrażenie jakby kompletnie różniła się od tych które funkcjonują w normalnym świecie (które definiują ciek na ca...
	9	2025-02-15 18:00	unyny ♦6	Zwracam też uwagę na pogorszenie jakości mapy z tak pozaznaczanymi ciekami. Przy większych powiększeniach rzeki mają "poucinane" górne odcinki (w przypadku tych mniejszych może to być znaczna część ich biegu), co znacznie utrudnia ich znalezienie i najzwyczajniej zakłamu...
	10	2025-02-15 18:09	JakubS ♦23	@unyny Powtórzę jeszcze raz, że sposób tagowania za którym argumentuję, nie jest moim wymysłem, a standardem przyjętym przez społeczność OSM, powszechnie stosowanym i raczej mało kontrowersyjnym jeśli prześledzić choćby dyskusje na forum. Jeżeli się z nim nie zgad...
	11	2025-02-15 18:14	JakubS ♦23	A jeszcze odnośnie twojego ostatniego komentarza, to opisujesz tagowanie pod rendering, którego unikamy w OSM (mapując od tylu lat powinieneś już to wiedzieć). Nie wiadomo czemu ma służyć takie podejście, chyba tylko komfortu jakichś nieogarów którzy nie są w stanie z...
	12	2025-02-15 18:18	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	"chyba tylko komfortu jakichś nieogarów którzy nie są w stanie zrozumieć, że rzeka w górnym biegu może być mała." to że nie wiesz jak w OSM zaznaczamy jakiś rodzaj obiektu to nie powód obrażać innych jak ktoś chce całą długość cieku wodneg...
	13	2025-02-15 18:19	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	w każdym bądź razie wiesz już jak to zaznaczać, i wiesz że twoje tagowanie było błędne
	14	2025-02-15 18:27	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	dla konkretów: w https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13629726 masz całą trasę rzeki (elementy main_stream) jak ktoś chce to może całą taką, nawet tam gdzie jest strumieniem, prezentować z wyróżnieniem
	15	2025-02-21 12:42	SomeoneElse	When I read these comments in translation I see that unyny has written "a river is a river, and a stream is a stream along its entire length". This is not how most people in OSM map rivers and streams. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rzeka-czy-strumien/125897/1 seems to be a discu...
	16	2025-02-21 12:43	SomeoneElse	Kiedy czytam te komentarze w tłumaczeniu, widzę, że unyny napisało „rzeka jest rzeką, a strumień jest strumieniem na całej swojej długości”. Większość osób w OSM nie mapuje rzek i strumieni w ten sposób. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rzeka-czy-strumien/1...
162553358 by CD Mapper @ 2025-02-15 22:35	1	2025-02-17 12:49	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like the update here has created a gap in a couple of boundary relations. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12409614#map=19/54.856662/-6.763608 has a gap under the bridge and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12403345#map=19/54.856662/-6.763608 also. The new culvert need...
	2	2025-02-17 12:51	SomeoneElse	Also these two relations: < -4868091 \| Fallagloon < -4868069 \| Bracaghreilly
162531305 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-15 10:36	1	2025-02-17 12:50	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
162567677 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-16 11:57	1	2025-02-17 12:20	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
131315314 by Antonin Del Fabbro @ 2023-01-15 21:38	1	2025-02-16 18:46	SomeoneElse	Hello, Was this mechanical edit discussed anywhere? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-02-16 19:07	Antonin Del Fabbro ♦310	Hi Andy, It was not a mechanical edit. ;) Thanks!
	3	2025-02-16 21:13	SomeoneElse	What was it that guided you to change these objects?
	4	2025-02-16 21:20	Antonin Del Fabbro ♦310	… 1. The Wiki after the new attribute was voted 2. It was undiscussed 3. All the modified objects where verified before edit. Aerial imagery, name and others attributes. It's no different from an usual edit I can chairmap. I know the rules about mechanical or blind edits, I read ...
	5	2025-02-16 21:26	SomeoneElse	Did you let any data consumers know that you were going to make the change? If not, how could they possibly know of it?
160962084 by VLD296 @ 2025-01-03 18:45	1	2025-02-16 12:12	SomeoneElse	Hello, Given that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1348314221 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439915296 are tagged identically and have identical relationship memberships, what value does this change add? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-02-16 12:14	SomeoneElse	One more question - you've written "#maproulette" in the comment - does that mean that this change was done as a result of a maproulette challenge? If so, where is that?
	3	2025-02-16 13:47	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	given " I am the user VLD296, previously working on the mapping team at Meta. I am no longer active at the project. For any questions, please contact via email at osm@fb.com." at their user profile they are unlikely to answer
	4	2025-02-16 13:53	SomeoneElse	Their last edit was only 9 days ago! Hopefully somewhat at Facebook is monitoring the email with which https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VLD296 was signed up. My experience with osm@fb.com is that sometimes a bit of cage rattling via backchannels to get a response.
	5	2025-02-16 14:01	SomeoneElse	I've asked the second question of an active Facebook mapper with similar MO at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162522036 . There the "divide at intersection" makes more sense than here.
	6	2025-02-24 17:31	VLD170 ♦9	Hello Andy, It is correct that VLD 296 is no longer working on our team. Apologies for the delayed response. I believe this edit was made because the road has a significant direction change at the point that it was split. Here is the challenge link https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/52996. ...
	7	2025-02-25 14:02	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	"the road has a significant direction change at the point that it was split" why road should be changed in such cases anywhere at all?
	8	2025-02-28 22:00	VLD170 ♦9	Hi Mateusz, A few reasons for splitting the road at a direction change are navigation and a better representation of the roads by improving the geometry. Additionally, It is very common for road names to change when the road has a large shift in cardinal direction. Matt
	9	2025-03-01 23:30	łapa ciemności ♦6	Why it would improve navigation? How it improves geometry? (and yes, if name changes it should be split but because name changes not due to a sharp turn)
	10	2025-03-03 21:05	VLD170 ♦9	Upon further review of this changeset, I have determined that the edit to split the way was not necessary, as there are no indications that the road would change names at this location. I will proceed to address the issue by recombining the way accordingly. Thank you for bringing this to my attentio...
162481645 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-13 21:23	1	2025-02-15 00:14	SomeoneElse	Hello, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5328674 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5328037 now have gaps in them - I'm guessing that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1359703304 should be part of both? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-02-15 10:37	b-unicycling ♦256	I added the missing part to three relations (Aglish, Portnascully and Corluddy).
	3	2025-02-15 11:35	SomeoneElse	Also https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5328674 Clasharoe needs doing too? The JOSM validator picks this up: 1) Download object https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1359703304 2) Zoom out a bit 3) Download data (some relations will appear) 4) Click on all relations shown and "download wit...
	4	2025-02-16 11:58	b-unicycling ♦256	Fixed. I usually use iD for that, it's quicker, because it takes so long for JOSM to load. Thanks for pointing it out.
	5	2025-02-16 13:49	SomeoneElse	Thanks
162562803 by n1dom @ 2025-02-16 09:18	1	2025-02-16 12:30	SomeoneElse	Hello, What actually was the problem before and what was actually fixed here? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-02-16 12:56	n1dom ♦1	Hi, The footpath way runs under the bridge but had a node connecting to the bridge way. Dom
	3	2025-02-16 13:14	SomeoneElse	Thanks - does maproulette allow you to say things like that in the changeset comment?
162023935 by jambamkin @ 2025-02-01 19:43	1	2025-02-16 12:01	SomeoneElse	Hello, I'm guessing that you got to this area via the Asda car park https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1206017691/history but what were all the other changes here? They don't look like "rare parking=* values". Best Regards, Andy
160033632 by Simon Hobeck @ 2024-12-07 16:58	1	2025-02-11 19:27	SomeoneElse	Hello, On https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/8418714 you've changed "place=historic_township" to "place=town". Do you really believe that there is a town in Ireland called "Kingstown Township 1828-1855" :) To be fair, the task instruct...
	2	2025-02-11 19:27	SomeoneElse	One more thing - I'm guessing tthat all of these changes will need reverting - do you need help with that?
	3	2025-02-11 19:30	alan_gr ♦43	Hi, I was wondering if the change from historic_township to town was discussed with Irish mappers or anywhere else? In isolation "place=town" suggests this is actually a town currently. Only the boundary=historic tag and the end dates give clues that this is not a real "place=town&qu...
	4	2025-02-11 19:30	alan_gr ♦43	Sorry, I must have been typing at the same time as SomeoneElse! Didn't intend to pile on there, but don't think I can delete it now.
	5	2025-02-15 13:25	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162536114 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some poor-quality Maproulette changes. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160033632 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maproulette-critique/116922/90
	6	2025-02-15 18:43	Simon Hobeck ♦12	@someoneElse I'm sorry for the mess I made. It wasn't intentional I must have got confused with the task and the attributes. TBH I found Maproulette more trouble than its worth so have stopped using it - much safer sticking with StreetComplete and Direct edits. I did get muddled by the...
	7	2025-02-15 21:42	SomeoneElse	No worries - sorted now. Unfortunately you got blindsided by a couple of things: One is the "unusual" storage of historic data in OSM in Ireland (and particularly around Dublin). Like the UK, Ireland doesn't have freely accessible address data, and arguably OSI and OSI are even mor...
162244458 by aSalmon @ 2025-02-07 12:54	1	2025-02-08 11:53	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think that there might be a bit of a problem with some of the relations here - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137279112 overlaps with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375867813 now, which means that relations such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11047400 have overlaps and hav...
	2	2025-02-12 14:45	aSalmon ♦1	Thanks Andy. I don't really have the technical knowledge to understand this problem, so I just reverted the whole changeset with osm-revert.
	3	2025-02-15 12:35	SomeoneElse	Thanks - everything has now reappeared, I think.
162251302 by rskedgell @ 2025-02-07 16:09	1	2025-02-15 12:24	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
149600582 by BCNorwich @ 2024-04-05 07:28	1	2025-02-15 01:29	SomeoneElse	I'm not sure what happened here but "remove self intersection of way" seems to have changed the tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128205661/history from grass / common to recreation_ground(!).
162384688 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-11 10:27	1	2025-02-15 00:44	SomeoneElse	Thanks - this has reappeared now
162433113 by aSalmon @ 2025-02-12 14:42	1	2025-02-15 00:34	SomeoneElse	Thanks - they've reappeared now!
134431427 by DougGrinbergs @ 2023-04-02 22:27	1	2025-02-13 11:06	SomeoneElse	Also on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10780586226 I suspect that "bitch" might be an iOS typo for "bench"?
156970489 by DougGrinbergs @ 2024-09-22 21:48	1	2025-02-13 11:04	SomeoneElse	I'm guessing that "bitch" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12193471749 might actually be an iOS autocorrect typo for "bench"?
162134426 by F777 @ 2025-02-04 17:03	1	2025-02-12 23:18	SomeoneElse	Hello, Please help other mappers to understand what you are changing by using changeaet comments that describe what it is you're changing. Best Regards, Andy
160891291 by deleted user123 @ 2025-01-02 02:29 Active block	1	2025-01-02 02:53	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160891524 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some obvious vandalism by user blocked at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17052
	2	2025-02-07 18:21	Hulu12 ♦4	*-SomeoneElse_Revert so what you're saying is reverting obvious vandalism is obvious vandalism? This seems wrong sure.
	3	2025-02-11 19:58	SomeoneElse	Have a look at e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/13465548 to see the actual tag changes here.
162371644 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-10 23:49	1	2025-02-11 18:02	SomeoneElse	Not sure if it was this changeset that did it, but a gap has opened up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8815518#map=16/53.14825/-7.18811 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8797261#map=16/53.14825/-7.18811 here.
	2	2025-02-12 09:39	b-unicycling ♦256	fixed, thanks
98293459 by votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale @ 2021-01-28 11:40	1	2025-02-10 17:54	SomeoneElse	Hello, Are you sure that this shop is correctly located? It seems to be in the middle of the footpath. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-02-11 07:41	votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale ♦266	Good morning, Thank you for your alert. We've corrected the problem. Best Regards L'Equipe DB
162328030 by b-unicycling @ 2025-02-09 20:34	1	2025-02-10 14:02	SomeoneElse	Hello, I suspect that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1358422651 needs adding the the townlands that its neighbour up the road is part of - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4632073#map=16/52.96480/-7.36730 now has a gap in it. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-02-11 10:29	b-unicycling ♦256	Thanks for pointing that out, should be fixed now.
158551252 by YorkiePudd @ 2024-10-30 17:11	1	2024-10-31 23:31	Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,137	reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158601444
	2	2024-10-31 23:34	YorkiePudd ♦2	Why did you revert it, it's how the two roads meet and connect
	3	2025-02-07 10:50	SomeoneElse	@Spaghetti Monster: Just for info, Hall Ings was a pedestrian route round a building site the last time I was there (a few months ago), I would assume that any imagery bears no relation to current layout. It really needs input from people on the ground.
	4	2025-02-07 13:03	Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,137	Other discussions: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158189468 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150275508 I don't remember exactly why I reverted this.
	5	2025-02-07 14:00	SomeoneElse	Apparently a "phased reopening" of the bus station is underway (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5w2qqk526o - started early Jan, to complete in April). I'm guessing based on that that a certain amount of development work is still incomplete - hopefully someone passing throug...
150275508 by The_JF @ 2024-04-20 18:15	1	2024-10-31 23:38	Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,137	Hi Do you have a source for the razed Jacob's Well roundabout on Princes Way south of city park? Mapillary or Kartaview imagery would be ideal. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapillary https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/KartaView
	2	2025-02-07 13:29	SomeoneElse	When I was at the Jacob's Well pub 6 months ago, the whole area between the Interchange station and there was a building site. I'm guessing the bus station has reopened now, but it hadn't ~4 months ago. It'll need someone on site to do it properly, I think.
158601444 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2024-10-31 23:31	1	2025-02-07 10:52	SomeoneElse	What was the "incorrect mapping" that you reverted here? Without knowing that it's impossible to know what the problem was before.
162214845 by fredgolightly @ 2025-02-06 16:22	1	2025-02-06 16:32	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
162208606 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-02-06 13:21	1	2025-02-06 15:03	rskedgell ♦1,673	Thanks. I'll try to walk the Strood/Rochester - Rainham bit soon and check the Saxon Shore way signage. I haven't been there for 10+ years, but I have a feeling that it may be a little bit like the Capital Ring and only signed on one side of the road in places.
	2	2025-02-06 15:10	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
79383177 by Xcm81 @ 2020-01-09 15:30	1	2021-10-02 09:54	SomeoneElse	Hello, This changeset added a "spur" to the Saxon Shore Way - before it looked like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bFT and after it looked like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bFU . Was that deliberate? Sometimes paths like this have spurs that join to other roads, but sometimes they get add...
	2	2025-02-05 15:51	Xcm81 ♦1	Hi Andy, somehow I have only seen this message now. A bit late, I am afraid. Apologies. Is there still anything I need to look into? Regards, Xcm
	3	2025-02-05 20:45	SomeoneElse	Thanks - no, that spur's long gone now, I think.
161801668 by alain2003 @ 2025-01-27 02:22	1	2025-02-05 13:59	SomeoneElse	Hello, There's an issue with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5174294 - the JOSM validator and OSM Inspector https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-6.59579&lat=31.53086&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_sh...
	2	2025-02-06 13:03	alain2003 ♦23	Hi SomeoneElse Thanks for reporting this, Indeed the roles are not right. I looked into it and fixed the errors. Best regeards
161969878 by thetornado76 @ 2025-01-31 09:37	1	2025-02-02 13:38	SomeoneElse	Rather than saying "healthcare fixed" it would be much better to explain what you've changed things from, what you've changed they to and why you've changed it. healthcare=osteopath is a tag that people actually consume: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/healthcare=o...
	2	2025-02-02 13:41	SomeoneElse	The purpose of the OSM wiki is to document how people map, not to tell them how to map. Did you discuss this edit beforehand as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ? If not, then your actions are actively making OSM worse for editors and data consumers, not bett...
	3	2025-02-02 16:57	thetornado76 ♦172	Unfortunately the comment isn't particularly meaningful. I vow to get better. I think it makes more sense to change to approved healthcare:speciality with a usage of over 2200 for osteopathy to make evaluations easier, rather than healthcare=osteopath which has only been used once worldwide.
	4	2025-02-03 10:14	SomeoneElse	Thanks - it does make sense to tidy very small numbers of these where they mean the same thing, but the challenge with things like osteopaths is that it's a field that overlaps between regular and "alternative" medicine. The wikipedia article has a bit of background on it - that'...
161989846 by Brianl1111 @ 2025-01-31 19:45	1	2025-02-02 21:05	SomeoneElse	Hello, I suspect that some of the deletions here https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=161989846 have broken the townlands https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5409187 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5372342 . You've also deleted a lot of trees here - can I ask why? Best Reg...
162023145 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-02-01 19:19	1	2025-02-01 19:24	SomeoneElse	... beyond local knowledge I don't know of a license-compatible source for either. The Eastern one is often referred to (in incompatible-with-OSM sources, including Mark W Jones' "Snickelways of York" book) with a name, and a search for that name finds news articles describing i...
	2	2025-02-01 19:32	SomeoneElse	However, old maps suggest a slightly different story. An Ordnance Survey Town Plan of 1889 https://maps.nls.uk/view/231287205 suggests "Pope's Head Alley" for the eastern one and "Peter Lane Passage" for the western. An earlier OS Town Plan from 1851 https://maps.nls.uk/...
161943008 by James Derrick @ 2025-01-30 15:51	1	2025-01-30 20:13	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
123965431 by James Derrick @ 2022-07-23 08:07	1	2025-01-30 14:06	SomeoneElse	Hello, Are you sure https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1080694372 is a tunnel? It doesn't look like one (see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/287651 ).
	2	2025-01-30 15:53	James Derrick ♦80	Hi, After a check of survey photos and GPX, I think this is an #armchair addition likely from worse imagery. I can remember the factory and services from canal visits to MH, but not this crossing (walked more towards Foxton/ Gumley). Current imagery does look like an informal "flat" cro...
	3	2025-01-30 16:16	James Derrick ♦80	Hi, Found some Mapillary imagery confirming a flat crossing (handrail to the N): https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=259034485970364 Happy Mapping, James
161452120 by Comino @ 2025-01-17 11:45	1	2025-01-23 12:14	JeroenHoek ♦696	Dit is een huis, niet een partijkantoor. Tevens lijkt er buiten niets te hangen wat op een kantoor wijst, en is er niets waarvoor je zou kunnen betalen met Bitcoin.
	2	2025-01-23 18:39	Comino ♦264	Goedenavond Jeroen, Dit is weldegelijk het partijkantoor van de Libertaire Partij. Kijk daarvoor bijvoorbeeld in het KvK Handelsregister. Het partijbestuur komt hier o.a. bijeen. En o.a. je lidmaatschap kan je betalen in Bitcoin. Edwin
	3	2025-01-23 19:31	JeroenHoek ♦696	Dat ze daar statutair gevestigd zijn klopt, maar je weet inmiddels ook al dat we geen KvK-adressen op de kaart zetten tenzij er ter plekke echt wat is. Dit is (wederom) een huis zonder kantoor van een kleine politieke partij. Daarnaast kun je daar ter plekke niets kopen (waar de payment-tags voor...
	4	2025-01-23 21:27	Comino ♦264	Greenpeace, Rode Kruis, diverse stichtingen wel, allemaal plekken waar je niets kan kopen, maar een politieke partij niet? Die begrijp ik niet.
	5	2025-01-23 21:48	JeroenHoek ♦696	Die hebben stuk voor stuk een echt kantoor. Zonder kantoor zetten we die trouwens ook niet op de kaart. De kaart zou vol staan met stichtingen, ZZP'ers, en webshops in woonwijken als we dat wel deden, terwijl je er ter plekke niets kan. Kijk maar eens naar Google Maps om te zien wat voor zinloz...
	6	2025-01-30 13:23	SomeoneElse	@Comino - yes, @JeroenHoek is correct here. If you'd like to discuss it with more people you can do that in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43 .
	7	2025-01-30 13:23	SomeoneElse	@Comino - ja, @JeroenHoek heeft hier gelijk. Als je het met meer mensen wilt bespreken, kun je dat doen op het forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43 .
161910508 by jajanja3 @ 2025-01-29 19:11	1	2025-01-29 23:21	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello jajanja3, There's a gap in the Saxon Shore Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8864#map=19/51.383975/0.507900 - do you know how it joins there? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-01-30 11:06	jajanja3 ♦7	Hi , I"ve got no idea , I could try finding out for you . Hopefully some body local can update it Thanks
	3	2025-01-30 12:46	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I've added a note at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4607601 so that hopefully someone local should see it.
161335376 by ocnoc @ 2025-01-14 08:06	1	2025-01-24 13:33	SomeoneElse	Hello, After the change here, there,s a gap in the Offaly Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4112772#map=17/53.201926/-7.725653 . I'm guessing the path is blocked - do you know if the Offaly Way has been rerouted? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-01-26 19:06	ocnoc ♦1	Hi Andy, The Offaly way has changed route slightly in Boora. I'll get out on the bike from the canal and see where it goes exactly and update it. Further along, before Cadamstown, it was blocked by land owners Colm
	3	2025-01-26 19:09	SomeoneElse	Great - thanks!
	4	2025-01-26 19:29	ocnoc ♦1	Fixed. Didn't realise I "broke" the track when I corrected the track. Thanks for letting me know
147752346 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-02-21 22:46	1	2025-01-26 18:46	phodgkin ♦72	The gate on the tertiary road Apperley Road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147752346#map=19/53.837415/-1.705963 looks a bit odd. Could this have been a temporary closure? I didn't see anything when I passed on 25 Jan 2025 - clear way through to the A658 from the junction with App...
	2	2025-01-26 18:52	SomeoneElse	Correct - there's no gate now. There was about a year ago, when it was closed for flood defence works. Someone spotted that the road had reopened about 3 months ago, and when I was there just before Christmas that bit of road was fully open (and the pub seemed to have had a much-needed lick o...
161724567 by ViriatoLusitano @ 2025-01-24 18:53	1	2025-01-25 11:07	SomeoneElse	Thanks - this, and "Cork No. 5 ED" reappeared in the database.
161715912 by alain2003 @ 2025-01-24 14:59	1	2025-01-24 17:54	SomeoneElse	As I understand it, the licence situation is that the licence under which this data was published isn't compatible with OSM. We (the DWG) suggested asking for a waiver. I believe that an email was sent asking for a waiver, but I don't believe that it was followed up. At best, the haste be...
	2	2025-01-24 17:57	SomeoneElse	Where there are many interlinked changes, osm-revert is a terrible choice for undoing changes. Please do not use it in situations like this.
	3	2025-01-24 18:02	SomeoneElse	The options for tidying up from here are a manual fix of each relation one at a time, adding all the missing pieces (which is a lot of work), or a "big revert" of everything - both the initial import and the osm-revert attenpts. The "big revert" with tools that actually workwill ...
	4	2025-01-24 21:27	alain2003 ♦23	Hi Sorry for this big mess i made,i was not aware that the revert program could do that damage. I can ftry to fix all these broken boundaries by hand with the original boundaries(shapefiles) retrived from osm by GADM witch the licence i believe is compatible.but it will as you said very much ti...
	5	2025-01-24 22:07	SomeoneElse	@alain2003 - OK, thanks - let me know if you need the DWG to pick up any reverts.
	6	2025-01-25 13:47	Aleksandar Matejevic ♦221	alain2003 can you share these files so I can jump in and help fix the boundaries???
160436218 by alain2003 @ 2024-12-20 14:32	1	2024-12-20 14:35	SomeoneElse	Hello, Under what licence is data from data.humdata.org made available? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2024-12-20 16:21	alain2003 ♦23	https://data.humdata.org/faqs/licenses
	3	2024-12-20 16:45	SomeoneElse	That's just a list. Under what licence(s) is the data from data.humdata.org that you actually used made available?
	4	2024-12-20 19:27	alain2003 ♦23	https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/
	5	2024-12-20 19:29	alain2003 ♦23	Open Database License (ODC-ODbL) Under the ODC-ODbL license, you are free: To Share: To copy, distribute and use the database. To Create: To produce works from the database. To Adapt: To modify, transform and build upon the database. As long as you: Attribute: You mus...
	6	2024-12-20 19:54	SomeoneElse	That page says "You can share your data on HDX under one of the following Creative Commons licenses. ". Where is the page that says that the data that you are using from there is ODBL? Also, what is the source? Someone must have uploaded it to this site - where from?
	7	2024-12-20 21:21	alain2003 ♦23	ooh,you mean the dataset files? these are shapefiles https://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-mar
	8	2024-12-20 23:24	alain2003 ♦23	Can we use this dataset or not?
	9	2024-12-20 23:55	SomeoneElse	I think that we'd need to get a waiver, unless one has already been obtained. On https://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-mar it says "License Creative Commons Attribution for Intergovernmental Organisations". That links to the licences page where it says "Creative Commons A...
	10	2024-12-21 01:23	alain2003 ♦23	Hi I'ts best to revert all the changes i made on boundaries. This license is very vage .cannot be used in osm i do not even know how to revert these changes.
	11	2024-12-21 02:13	SomeoneElse	I'd suggest that you at least ask about a waiver before reverting everything! Perhaps ask in the forum c.osm.org ?
	12	2024-12-21 02:34	alain2003 ♦23	Hi Since the new forum,have no acces to it. connot register nor login. /auth/failure?message=csrf_detected
	13	2024-12-21 04:02	SomeoneElse	I'm sure it'll be fixed soon. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/there-seems-to-be-a-problem-with-authorisation-currently/123139/9 .
	14	2024-12-21 09:36	ilias_ ♦374	Let’s not jump to conclusions too fast, the edits alain2003 made (apart from the fact they took hours and hours of work) are extremely valuable to the country, as administrative boundaries were inaccurate. I have sent an email to the United Nations OCHA (creators of the dataset) asking them fo...
	15	2024-12-21 15:15	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
	16	2025-01-24 15:22	Aleksandar Matejevic ♦221	Please, please, please stop reverting the changesets, you are making mess on the map, now all neighboring countries relations are also broken. Lets discuss this with OCHA to see if they give a vaiwer in the next week and with DWG about doing proper reverts.
	17	2025-01-24 18:11	SomeoneElse	I did (earlier today or yesterday) privately suggest to wait a bit longer for a reply. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I suspect that it will be a lot of work to undo the mess now, going either forward or backward.
	18	2025-01-24 18:18	ilias_ ♦374	Alain2003 started reverting the changes not because we did not get a reply, but because we actually got one, from the government organization from which the data is sourced. As you can see on https://data.humdata.org/dataset/cod-ab-mar, it says "Sourced from Le Haut Commissariat au Plan". ...
	19	2025-01-24 19:08	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I was unaware that we'd had an explicit "no" from the data source.
	20	2025-01-24 19:24	ilias_ ♦374	Sure - for the anecdote, I even asked a “director of statistics and cartography”, how come if they cannot legally provide us with this data, that it can be found on many websites, and his answer was “Honestly, I have no idea”. How can we contribute with people like this? Anyw...
	21	2025-01-25 11:38	Aleksandar Matejevic ♦221	Sorry if I have upset you, but we were lacking the info that you already got a hard no as an answer. Can you just reply here when all the reverts are done, so we can jump in a and fix broken things. If you want you can also use https://salmon-grass-0d758fe03.4.azurestaticapps.net/ to find broken bou...
161465765 by Maziar Soltanpour @ 2025-01-17 18:02 Active block	1	2025-01-17 20:01	elsy1 ♦198	This is my proof from neshan.org The source of its map data for Tabriz city is one of the official sources of the municipality image: https://imgur.com/a/RrCUfXJ
	2	2025-01-18 10:39	SomeoneElse	Can either one of you link to a photograph of the actual street sign?
	3	2025-01-18 10:39	SomeoneElse	آیا یکی از شما می تواند به عکسی از تابلوی خیابان واقعی پیوند دهد؟
	4	2025-01-18 11:42	elsy1 ♦198	I am not in tabriz but live in iran and I'm sure the municipality never uses a strange name "دلتنگی" for naming a street!. the real name is "دانشگاه" It means university because this street is next to the university. and this user never answer my comments to...
	5	2025-01-24 15:15	SomeoneElse	Somewhat related to the lack of response from Maziar Soltanpour here, there's been a block on that account: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17148 .
153407341 by Locator @ 2024-07-01 11:23	1	2025-01-24 13:20	SomeoneElse	Hello, Is there a signed diversion for the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/957011 ? Best Regards, Andy
159050170 by jenk_ @ 2024-11-12 13:23	1	2025-01-24 13:16	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like this changeset has introduced a gap in the Teesdale Way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/957011 . Is there really no way to get from https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/797941104 to the other side of the road? Best Regards, Andy
160171412 by mrpacmanmap @ 2024-12-11 14:32	1	2025-01-24 12:30	SomeoneElse	Hello, Is there really no way to get from the footpath here to the other side of the road? https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=52.514468%2C-2.017778%3B52.514101%2C-2.018011#map=17/52.515101/-2.019231 Best Regards, Andy
161612142 by ViriatoLusitano @ 2025-01-21 18:58	1	2025-01-24 12:15	SomeoneElse	Hello, It looks like after this edit https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12488720 has a gap in it. Previously it was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1XEG . I wonder if something was deleted here? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-01-24 12:18	SomeoneElse	Similarly also https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12488357 , which is the other side of the boundary.
	3	2025-01-24 12:19	SomeoneElse	Also was it planned to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5469858/history , which was Ballintemple townland?
	4	2025-01-24 16:18	ViriatoLusitano ♦157	Hello Andy, Once more I appreciate finding these issues for me. I will fix them now.
	5	2025-01-24 18:54	ViriatoLusitano ♦157	The Ballintemple had an erroneous exclave that I removed.
	6	2025-04-30 22:47	VictorIE ♦971	Hi, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12521136845 I'm not sure that townlands need to be double-mapped. Note that this one is spelled "Spital-lands" https://www.logainm.ie/en/13749 "Spital" is short for "Hospital".
161451873 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:37 Active block	1	2025-01-17 11:44	Jordi MF ♦1,710	Utilizar las Minutas del IGN no son indicativo de que en castellano se denominen así los topónimos. Las Minutas están llenas de errores ortográficos, de transliteraciones y de errores de comprensión de los ingenieros de caminos que recopilaron la información...
	2	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161633328 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-01-22 11:08	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 161450517, 161450593, 161450614, 161450659, 161450729, 161450770, 161450810, 161450832, 161451642, 161451742, 161451803, 161451847, 161451873, 161451946, 161451988, 161452094, 161630648, 161632137.
161450832 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:02 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161451988 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:41 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161451946 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:39 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161450729 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:59 Active block	1	2025-01-17 11:29	Jordi MF ♦1,710	Oficialmente, el nombre del cabo es "Cap de Martí" segons l'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua. Por lo tanto, no es Cap de Sant Martí.
	2	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161450593 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:55 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161450659 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:57 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161450770 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:00 Active block	1	2025-01-17 11:27	Jordi MF ♦1,710	¿Qué fuente de datos para indica que el topónimo "los Pallers de Jávea" existe?
	2	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161630648 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-22 09:53 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161450810 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:01 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161632137 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-22 10:32 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161452094 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:44 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161451847 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:36 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161451642 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:29 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161450614 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:55 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161451742 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:33 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161451803 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 11:35 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161450517 by Balansiya @ 2025-01-17 10:53 Active block	1	2025-01-22 11:08	SomeoneElse	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161633328 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by an account created to evade blocks. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17133
161619821 by jajanja3 @ 2025-01-22 00:51	1	2025-01-22 09:47	SomeoneElse	Hello jajanja3 and welcome to OpenStreetMap! It'd be great if you could be a bit more descriptive than "Modifying & Creating New Features" when adding changeset comments. If you have a read of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments it'll explain a bit m...
161584640 by Jules Bertholet @ 2025-01-21 03:04	1	2025-01-21 15:23	SomeoneElse	Hello, There's actually a discussion going on about how best to name this in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571/43 - I'd suggest joining that. Best Regards, Andy
161592474 by Mappam-12 @ 2025-01-21 09:31	1	2025-01-21 15:22	SomeoneElse	Hello, There's actually a discussion going on about how best to name this in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571/43 - I'd suggest joining that. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-01-21 19:37	PinguDEV ♦9	Also, why did you (@Mappam-12) add a check_data? For what is it? That the Gulf hasn't drowned?
	3	2025-01-21 19:55	Mappam-12 ♦1	I believe I did it by mistake, but let’s just stick with the idea that the gulf has drowned and needs checking haha.
76997557 by James Derrick @ 2019-11-13 08:18	1	2025-01-18 15:55	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello - a quick question about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/742792269/history . That was a "bridge=aqueduct" and "layer=1". It then changed to "bridge=aqueduct", "tunnel=culvert" and "layer=-1". I'm guessing that this might have been by ...
	2	2025-01-20 08:58	James Derrick ♦80	Hi, Looking back some years, I'm not finding direct cycle survey images so this must be an "armchair" edit from imagery and local knowledge from nearby roads. A fair chunk of this leet is in a "cutting" (presumably to reduce evaporation and to reduce gravity flow) so was...
	3	2025-01-21 01:45	SomeoneElse	Looking at the wider area on imagery there's definitely more tunnel=culvert that I'd have expected - I guess it's below ground level, but there's nothing over the top of it (apart from the bridges). https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/742792269/history looks like an aqueduct with ...
	4	2025-01-21 10:47	James Derrick ♦80	Hi, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/742792269/history >looks like an aqueduct with nothing over the top of it and the stream underneath? Agree - more of a "surface aqueduct" to bridge over a small river valley depression than a soaring structure. I've made the cha...
	5	2025-01-21 10:53	SomeoneElse	Yes (with the big caveat that I'm not at all familiar with the area!). Thanks, Andy
160827151 by little_maper @ 2024-12-31 10:54	1	2025-01-17 10:30	okainov ♦15	Hi! I see you have updated a few roads in historic ruins in Oman using tag "digitalEgypt", was this intended? The footways were marked intentionally, what was the reason for this change?
	2	2025-01-19 12:36	little_maper ♦90	Hello okainov; Thank you for reaching out. I updated roads based on a few cars that appear in the satellite image in this area and thank you for your edits. Regards little_maper
	3	2025-01-19 13:17	okainov ♦15	Some of those streets are not even wide enough for cars and you should be able to clearly see those are ruins.
	4	2025-01-19 13:52	little_maper ♦90	Hello okainov; Thank you for bringing my attention to that and happy mapping! Regards little_maper
	5	2025-01-21 02:01	SomeoneElse	A bit more info - there's a discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edits-by-digitalegypt-not-aligned-with-reality/124533 . It'd be great if you could comment there.
160778143 by Merna_mahmoud @ 2024-12-30 07:07	1	2025-01-19 12:43	okainov ♦15	Hi! Could you please clarify the reason for this change? The streets in in area of old ruins are indeed with square corners, your changeset have changed the geometry to "smooth" them somehow and that's not how I mapped those and not how they're in reality. --- ...
	2	2025-01-20 08:29	Merna_mahmoud ♦15	Hi okainov, Thank you for your message. I modified it to improve the shape and treat the sharp angel because crossing on slopes Thank you. Merna_mahmoud
	3	2025-01-21 02:01	SomeoneElse	A bit more info - there's a discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edits-by-digitalegypt-not-aligned-with-reality/124533 . It'd be great if you could comment there.
160595598 by salma_ayman @ 2024-12-25 08:32	1	2025-01-19 13:02	okainov ♦15	Hi! Could you please explain the reason for this change? I've explicitly removed "access=private" from some roads because they are not private and accessible by general public (even though being close to military zone).
	2	2025-01-21 02:01	SomeoneElse	For info, there's a discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-edits-by-digitalegypt-not-aligned-with-reality/124533 . It'd be great if you could comment there.
	3	2025-01-21 08:49	salma_ayman ♦19	Hello Okainov, Thank you for reaching out. I added the access tag based on my understanding of the military area's restrictions for public access. I appreciate your clarification regarding the comment and your efforts to review and remove tags as needed. However, I would like to kindly reque...
	4	2025-01-21 09:03	okainov ♦15	I've updated the indicated roads as well, thanks.
154232941 by hofoen @ 2024-07-21 18:56	1	2025-01-18 16:36	SomeoneElse	Hello, Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302914758/history really both underground _and_ a bridge? That seems an odd combination. Best Regards, Andy
161496057 by AvidFan @ 2025-01-18 15:35	1	2025-01-18 15:45	SomeoneElse	Hello again AvidFan, Just a reminder - lots of other mappers (including me!) have commented on your changes, and have let you know the problems that you have caused. You can see these comments at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10965811 . Before doing any other OpenStree...
161472750 by CD Mapper @ 2025-01-17 22:14	1	2025-01-18 11:36	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just to let you know, after this edit there was a bit of a gap in the relation for the Sperrins AONB. I created https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1352303735 and added it to the relation to fill it in. Let me know if you've got any questions. Cheers, Andy
161406832 by BCNorwich @ 2025-01-16 07:48	1	2025-01-16 20:18	SomeoneElse	See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161360974 for info
161399796 by Spaghetti Monster🍝 @ 2025-01-16 00:24	1	2025-01-16 20:18	SomeoneElse	See comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161360974 for info
161360974 by Bob Roach @ 2025-01-14 22:08	1	2025-01-16 20:17	SomeoneElse	Hello Bob, and welcome back to OSM. Can you explain a bit more what you mean about "delete unwanted lines" here? The deletion of e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42250174 seems to be of something that, according to the available imagery, still exists. Is it really not like that an...
161073737 by mapeing @ 2025-01-06 20:33	1	2025-01-09 12:47	SomeoneElse	Hello, After this edit there is a bit of a gap in the Saxon Shore Way https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8864#map=19/51.394665/0.563562 . Does it follow the diagonal path or the footpath that cuts the corner? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-01-14 13:07	SomeoneElse	No reply, so I've fixed this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161344574 .
106716204 by vladimir_gnedko @ 2021-06-21 12:41	1	2025-01-14 01:59	SomeoneElse	Just checking - are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8852902468/history is a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Demergency_access_point as described on that page?
160437605 by NTSamJones @ 2024-12-20 15:10	1	2025-01-10 11:02	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like this edit might have introduced a gap in the "Sandstone Trail" relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/50726#map=18/53.074166/-2.745740 . Previously that didn't have a gap: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1WV5 . Do you think you...
	2	2025-01-13 18:07	NTSamJones ♦1	hi yes please the trail goes Alone Bickerton FP10, the path that it followed that I deleted was a desire line. cheers sam
	3	2025-01-13 18:16	SomeoneElse	OK - done!
161238392 by Andy James 93 @ 2025-01-11 13:03	1	2025-01-13 11:30	SomeoneElse	Hello, I just wondered whether places like the bridge at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8595349#map=19/50.991481/-2.808351 were supposed to be still part of that cycle relation? Also see http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=8595349 . Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-01-13 13:46	Andy James 93 ♦2	Hi Andy The whole length from Langport to Barrington should have changed relation, it looks like i've missed some short bits out, or they havent saved. Welcome to correct it if you'd like to, or if not I can next time i'm on my desktop pc. Many thanks Andy
	3	2025-01-13 14:05	SomeoneElse	Thanks - I'll let you fix it since you know what should be what. There's no great urgency...
161163270 by Sigmund73 @ 2025-01-09 10:08	1	2025-01-11 10:35	SomeoneElse	Hello, OpenStreetMap is a map of real things in the real world. Don't add made-up names. Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group
	2	2025-01-11 10:35	SomeoneElse	Salve, OpenStreetMap è una mappa di cose reali nel mondo reale. Non aggiungere nomi inventati. Cordiali saluti, Andy Townsend, a nome del Data Working Group di OSM
	3	2025-01-11 11:04	Sigmund73 ♦1	It's surveyed, as declared in changeset comment. https://ibb.co/mbkBrPk
	4	2025-01-11 11:07	SomeoneElse	How come the stall at the back isn't labelled "Stalin" then?
	5	2025-01-12 10:02	Sigmund73 ♦1	Your sarcasm don't help OSM. Please revert your deletion.
	6	2025-01-12 10:27	SomeoneElse	It's not sarcasm. Both signs are clearly unofficial. One an a4 piece of paper temporarily attached to a wall for the photo, the other a graffito sprayed on it. If anything, "stalin" is likely to be the more permanent of the two
161214185 by YerevanTreeMap @ 2025-01-10 17:21	1	2025-01-10 19:59	Glassman ♦5,644	Please stop this import until you have followed the import guideline as outlined on the wiki. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
	2	2025-01-11 06:33	YerevanTreeMap ♦2	OK
	3	2025-01-11 08:23	YerevanTreeMap ♦2	We did create an Organized Editing Activity page in the wiki, it includes a description of how the process goes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Yerevan_Tree_Map#Import_plan There is no dataset to import per se. We had around 4k trees in our local database and th...
	4	2025-01-11 14:45	SomeoneElse	> Do we still need a complex import plan described for this, with revert plan etc? Yes, if you want the data you have already imported to stay in OSM rather than be reverted. You were told what you need to do via the comments to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/YerevanTreeMap/diary/4059...
	5	2025-01-11 14:47	SomeoneElse	Re the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Yerevan_Tree_Map#Import_plan page, you created that AFTER this import: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Organised_Editing/Activities/Yerevan_Tree_Map&action=history
	6	2025-01-11 16:45	YerevanTreeMap ♦2	Yes I have created the wiki page after I was pointed to that requirement, as a sign of respect. I did discuss this with the local OSM community and they have no issues with our activity. Also, I see in the organized editing guideline page the following text: > The Data Working group will i...
	7	2025-01-11 16:55	SomeoneElse	> Do you think there are issues with edits in this changeset? Hopefully not, but I've genuinely no idea. If there are any issues I'm sure they'll become clear when the community has had chance to review the import plan and the data already uploaded, licence details, etc.
161230451 by YerevanTreeMap @ 2025-01-11 08:41	1	2025-01-11 08:42	YerevanTreeMap ♦2	#YerevanTreeMap testing if comments are linking
	2	2025-01-11 14:43	SomeoneElse	Can you please point to where you have gone through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines (as mentioned at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/YerevanTreeMap/diary/405949#comment58642 )?
	3	2025-01-11 17:00	YerevanTreeMap ♦2	Process -- done, discussed with local community, decided that the data we collect is of public value and should be added to OSM. Step 1. Gain familiairty withe the basics of OSM -- done, long ago. Revide what can go wrong with imports -- read. Identify data you'd like to import -- done, i...
161186246 by Vpr65 @ 2025-01-09 22:09	1	2025-01-10 10:45	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just so you know, I think that something in this changeset might have deleted something that was the boundary of a couple of townlands - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4161139 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4161138 . The previous situation of one of them can be seen at h...
	2	2025-01-10 12:03	Vpr65 ♦1	Hi Andy Thanks for calling my error out. I intended to delete a "non-existent" road way unfortunately I appear to also have deleted the boundary associated with this road way. I would be very grateful if you could fix this. Thanks again Vincent
	3	2025-01-10 21:29	SomeoneElse	No problem. I've filled in the gaps, and the two townlands seem valid as polygons again. One thought though - the eastern bit of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1350089485 looks a bit like a dirt farm track (I presume a private one). Would it be correct to add those tags? The western bi...
161194924 by rene78 @ 2025-01-10 07:51	1	2025-01-10 15:59	SomeoneElse	Hello, > Might not be a 100% accurate. Please don't do this. Mapping recent events based on news reporting is hugely problematic. OSM often sees this in war zones, where something has happened but the initial reports about what may not be 100% correct. I suspect that the situation h...
	2	2025-01-10 16:12	rene78 ♦464	Hi Andy, I understand your concerns, and they’re valid. However, in this case, the YouTube videos provide high-quality aerial views. I’d estimate the error rate for houses incorrectly marked as “destroyed:building” to be well below 5%. Who knows—this might even serve...
	3	2025-01-10 20:21	Glassman ♦5,644	Please consult with the OSM US community before making more edits involving the wildfire. I'd strongly suggest joining the OSM US Slack by going to osmus.slack.com. Discussions are being held in the #disasters channel.
	4	2025-01-15 17:16	Brendan_07 ♦6	A more accurate source of data for this would be from the actual inspections: https://recovery.lacounty.gov/palisades-fire/
161201098 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-01-10 11:16	1	2025-01-10 11:24	SomeoneElse	See my comments at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160174336 . No reply there, so I re-added it here.
160174336 by aaliyahmcvey @ 2024-12-11 15:51 Active block	1	2024-12-12 13:57	SomeoneElse	Hello, In this changeset you've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26579103 , which was a cycleway between the bridge over the railway and Market Street. Is that really no longer there? If not, how does the Isle of Anglesey Coast Path join now? You can see that there are two gaps at ...
	2	2024-12-12 14:01	SomeoneElse	Hello, One more thing - you've deleted some things that were previously mapped here such as the Co-Op https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158249037/history and remapped it with far less detail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341830684 . Was the previous detail wrong, or should the old tag...
	3	2025-01-10 11:21	SomeoneElse	I've re-added the deleted cycle path in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161201098 . If that's wrong, please do let me know.
161152901 by mapeing @ 2025-01-09 01:20	1	2025-01-09 10:11	SomeoneElse	Hello again mapeing, I suspect that the information that you have added here doesn't actually reflect reality. For example, if you wanted to cross the road here, I'm sure that you would not need to follow this route: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&ro...
161097526 by ViriatoLusitano @ 2025-01-07 14:21	1	2025-01-08 10:43	SomeoneElse	Hello, I think this edit might have caused some problems with relations. If you have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11060057 you can see that it now has a gap in it, but a few days ago it didn't https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1WNb . Other affected relations might include 1104...
	2	2025-01-08 12:34	ViriatoLusitano ♦157	Thank you for the heads up Andy, I will fix these now.
	3	2025-01-09 09:42	SomeoneElse	Thanks - "Whitechurch Parish" et al have popped back into the database this morning.
161143984 by eteb3 @ 2025-01-08 18:33	1	2025-01-08 20:45	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
161130011 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-01-08 11:33	1	2025-01-08 11:38	SomeoneElse	Grr - forgot to close changeset - and the second part of this (unconnected) is "filled in gap in NCN61_R 31640". There's nothing between Knaresborough and Welwyn in here.
154954447 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-08-07 21:27	1	2024-08-07 21:31	SomeoneElse	Opinions differ about future status. Local press has "owners on holiday but will not reopen", another has "long term closed", and a rumour in another York pub is that another (well known) local landlord is likely to take it on. None of which contradicts that it's currently...
	2	2025-01-07 22:09	SomeoneElse	See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161112751
161112751 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-01-07 21:57	1	2025-01-07 22:02	SomeoneElse	Edits to other tags are obviously a bit guesswork - it'll probably look like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1080265350 but with food available (I'm guessing that the lino is for the bin, the OGM name will go and the outdoor seating will stay).
161066770 by Donut Master 🍩 @ 2025-01-06 16:59	1	2025-01-06 22:08	SomeoneElse	Hello klaratabaku914 and welcome to OpenStreetMap! One question - what were the issues that you fixed here? A changeset comment of "Fixed issues" doesn't really help explain... Best Regards, Andy
160944385 by Richard @ 2025-01-03 11:30	1	2025-01-04 20:21	SomeoneElse	I've mentioned this again at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/its-time-to-address-the-a8-m/117468/11 ; I'd suggest that that is probably the best place to discuss. Best Regards, Andy
160971239 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2025-01-04 00:12	1	2025-01-04 20:20	SomeoneElse	I've mentioned this again at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/its-time-to-address-the-a8-m/117468/11 ; I'd suggest that that is probably the best place to discuss. Best Regards, Andy
130415897 by kesterlester @ 2022-12-23 11:03	1	2025-01-03 22:11	SomeoneElse	Hello, Are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1122844274/history#map=17/52.566282/-1.431790 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1122862056/history#map=18/52.566262/-1.431788 the same thing? They're both gas pipelines in the same area. Best Regards, Andy
	2	2025-01-04 00:09	kesterlester ♦12	They are related but not the same thing. pipeline with tag "gas" is where the pipeline actually is -- a geographical entry -- which is often hard to know precisely as you don't always get crop marks etc. pipeline with tag "gas_topology" is a route connecting notes where th...
160939623 by train_01 @ 2025-01-03 09:24 Active block	1	2025-01-03 17:00	SomeoneElse	Hello train_01, Andy from OSM’s Data Working Group here. Each of your edits has a changeset comment of “.”. This doesn’t help other mappers understand what you’re actually doing. Also, lots of users have tried to get in touch with you via your changesets. These will...
	2	2025-01-03 17:00	SomeoneElse	Cześć train_01, Andy z OSM’s Data Working Group tutaj. Każda z Twoich edycji ma komentarz do zestawu zmian „.”. To nie pomaga innym maperom zrozumieć, co właściwie robisz. Ponadto wielu użytkowników próbowało się z Tobą skontaktować za pośrednictwem Tw...
160941584 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2025-01-03 10:21	1	2025-01-03 10:21	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 160818787, 160914483, 160914790.
	2	2025-01-03 10:39	SomeoneElse	See comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160914790
160914790 by meongseolin @ 2025-01-02 16:00	1	2025-01-03 10:21	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160941584 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed border changes around Georgia / Abkhazia
	2	2025-01-03 10:23	SomeoneElse	Hello meongseolin, You've twice tried to change the admin boundary levels here and it has twice been changed back. If you thing that something is wrong, please discuss on the forum c.osm.org . Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group
	3	2025-01-03 10:24	SomeoneElse	你好 meongseolin，你曾两次尝试更改此处的管理边界级别，但两次都被改回。如果您认为有什么问题，请在论坛 c.osm.org 上讨论。此致， Andy Townsend，代表 OSM 数据工作组
160701601 by Roadwaykeith @ 2024-12-28 06:45 Active block	1	2024-12-28 08:36	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	Are you mapping only in places you visited in person? Or are you using Google Street View or you are guessing. As one of authors of StreetComplete: please, use it only for objects that you seen in person
	2	2024-12-28 17:01	SomeoneElse	https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17010 @mateusz - will SC display a 0-hour block to the user?
	3	2024-12-28 22:38	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	No idea. I guess that I will need to test it on dev server.
	4	2024-12-30 23:18	SomeoneElse	See https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6062#issuecomment-2564842136 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-this-the-same-person/123461 .
	5	2025-01-03 03:04	Roadwaykeith Active block	Comment not displayed. To view it, please select the "Include blocked users" option.
	6	2025-01-03 03:10	SomeoneElse	You cannot use Google Street View to update OSM because the licence is not compatible
	7	2025-01-03 11:21	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
57514314 by abc26324 @ 2018-03-25 18:05	1	2025-01-02 14:30	SomeoneElse	Are you sure that there is a ridge crossing Scampton's main runway? I think it might cause something of an obstacle to people taking off...
160717302 by NTWickenFenPaths @ 2024-12-28 14:58	1	2025-01-01 17:04	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! You've used "wetland=island" here - I'm not sure what that means? You can see what values tend to be used with "wetland" in the UK at https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe:united-kingdom/keys/wetland#values and internationally at http...
160833256 by Adam Edwards @ 2024-12-31 13:43	1	2024-12-31 22:41	SomeoneElse	Hello, Thanks for updating this here. It looks like NCN12 also routes over that new bit of cycleway, so I've added that too. Best Regards, Andy
157949366 by DaanLT @ 2024-10-16 06:35	1	2024-10-16 07:02	dpolovinkin ♦357	hola again amigo! just noticed - you know it's not correct to make all changeset comments "adittions, clarifications" in OSM mapping, its kinda obvious already and gives 0 info. So can you pls write what exactly did you change or add https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_chang...
	2	2024-10-16 11:07	DaanLT ♦111	yes i know, mostly i map many things at once, so i cant describe everything, but i do proper comments when i map specific things.
	3	2024-12-31 13:31	SomeoneElse	Hello DaanLT, I'm sure you could do a _bit_ better than "additions, corrections" every single time :) Best Regards, Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)
160731603 by BlazingTD @ 2024-12-28 22:00	1	2024-12-31 13:19	SomeoneElse	Hello, You've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1317612878/history here, but if it's "unsafe and closed to public use" it'd be better to keep the geometry in OSM and change the tag from "highway" to something like "disused:highway" (see https://w...
160666248 by GarliccBread1 @ 2024-12-27 08:49	1	2024-12-27 18:17	jjyach ♦35	If you have concerns of recent edits please comment on them not just "fix" things to incorrect/inconsistent with standards across the map. Thank you.
	2	2024-12-28 05:38	GarliccBread1 ♦5	I understand your concerns, but I am fixing these to correct standards and the most up to date knowledge, not incorrect whatsoever, those paths to the detention ponds only existed during construction of the new science center a year ago, and they no longer exist now, if anything they are at most a t...
	3	2024-12-28 06:02	jjyach ♦35	All across the map service roads are placed into these drainage basins as they are for service access and have improvements over say a dirt track which is what track is supposed to be used for out in forests or other rural areas with no improvement. Data like this is critical for other entities tha...
	4	2024-12-31 13:10	SomeoneElse	If there's a difference of opinion here, perhaps mention it at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 and see what other people have to say? Best Regards, Andy (from the DWG)
145708545 by CorruptComputer @ 2023-12-30 18:29	1	2024-12-30 19:00	SomeoneElse2 ♦480	Hello, I've never been here, but are you sure that it's really "billiards" that is played here and not "bar_billiards"? They are two different games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_billiards has more detail. As a game, it's as different from billiards as tab...
	2	2024-12-30 19:06	CorruptComputer ♦66	Honestly I have no idea, about a year ago I went through the billiards tagging to clean it up to the standard that the Wiki had said. I've never heard of Bar Billiards before so at the time I probably just assumed this was a tagging mistake for Bar tables (7ft) as they are generally called ...
	3	2024-12-30 19:09	SomeoneElse	No worries - I can do it. I've just changed the Hop Leaf in Reading (which was definitely bar billiards).
	4	2024-12-30 19:14	CorruptComputer ♦66	Appreciate you catching that, and thanks for fixing it!
135124612 by SomeoneElse @ 2023-04-19 22:40	1	2024-12-30 13:58	eteb3 ♦124	Hi, Re the footbridge that is a continuation of the Gale: I passed the on the bike today and the bridge looked to be in use: fresh mud path tramped over the grass and crossing the bridge. I didn’t go up to the bridge itself. On that info is it worth reinstating the bridge, given what you ...
	2	2024-12-30 14:17	SomeoneElse	Yes - it was very closed a year ago, but sounds like it's open again now.
159403540 by mapeing @ 2024-11-21 10:47	1	2024-11-21 11:29	SomeoneElse	Hello demisee, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1238686932 has been mapped as a "police=checkpoint" with a name of "Bus Gate" and a long description. Are you sure that's correct? What I'd suggest that you do is to post a photo of it to the forum https://community....
	2	2024-11-21 11:53	mapeing ♦4	Hi, Thanks for the comment. Although not initially created by me, I noticed this particular feature already existed, but I only updated the description to provide better context on the feature than what was previously there (the wording) However, I would provide a photo but I’m not in t...
	3	2024-11-21 12:01	SomeoneElse	Ah yes - it was added 11 months ago by "Smudge the Cat". It'd be interesting to know what the current situation is. Bus gates tend to get handled by conditional restrictions on the road itself - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions for that. In this case...
	4	2024-11-21 21:49	mapeing ♦4	Hi, I visited this particular area today, and noticed that the “Bus Gate” is still there, although the colour has faded. Press link provided for the image Source: https://drive.proton.me/urls/DF6ZV47PPC#JqvnxO5Mg1A6
	5	2024-12-20 19:29	mapeing ♦4	https://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/revealed-date-new-town-centre-traffic-camera-goes-live-317700/
	6	2024-12-26 23:20	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
159271399 by mtbtoo @ 2024-11-18 08:10	1	2024-12-23 15:08	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160541857 where the changeset comment is: Revert changes on Rawcliffe landing, both initial accidental duplicate and subsequent partial fix
	2	2024-12-23 15:19	SomeoneElse	Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! It was me that forgot to clarify that that foot and bicycle access was permitted, back in 2022 - see https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/32493721 . I've undone the duplicate cycle path here, since there isn't one, but clarified the...
160422290 by Gleb_Artyomenko @ 2024-12-20 08:06	1	2024-12-23 15:08	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160541857 where the changeset comment is: Revert changes on Rawcliffe landing, both initial accidental duplicate and subsequent partial fix
	2	2024-12-23 15:15	SomeoneElse	Thanks for trying to fix this - unfortunately it still left a duplicate cycleway in place that does not exist. I've reverted both this and the changeset that caused the initial issue, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159271399 . Chan you check that all now looks OK at your end?
	3	2025-01-08 09:14	Gleb_Artyomenko ♦29	Hello! Thank you for your feedback! I will take this into account in the future. After your correction, everything looks fine.
58085761 by SomeoneElse @ 2018-04-14 09:59	1	2024-12-22 15:59	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5552177150/history has shop = homeware that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly) shop=homeware ? What kind of shop, if any is here? Is it intentionally used instead of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=houseware ? If yes, what i...
	2	2024-12-22 16:45	SomeoneElse	A quick web search suggests that wholesale wicker baskets seems to be their thing, so fill your boots based on that.
	3	2025-08-08 12:12	Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,752	shop=wholesale_wicker_baskets ? will never ever be used anywhere else, but maybe still better than shop=homeware that seems to fit poorly for that? there is also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dwholesale shop=wholesale wholesale=wicker_baskets ?
144024567 by gmar5 @ 2023-11-14 19:57	1	2024-12-22 10:11	SomeoneElse	Hello, The access tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/355992929/history that was added here was "privateclientelism". Someone's changed that to "customers;private" (which isn't particularly meaningful). What was the access tag supposed to be here - I'm gu...
	2	2024-12-22 11:07	gmar5 ♦77	Thank you for spotting that. Yes, it was certainly a typo. I have changed it to private only, since it looks like parking for the school.
	3	2024-12-22 12:33	SomeoneElse	Great, thanks!
160243325 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2024-12-13 12:04	1	2024-12-14 00:09	kitsee ♦115	I'm reverting this. Please go and discuss stuff like this before making drastic changes. You cant just stroll into an area and force your standards upon everyone else. This is getting silly. if you haven't noticed I've micro mapped this entire town in high detail. There are 4 islands ...
	2	2024-12-17 13:50	Nathan_A_RF ♦220	You are being incredibly rude, obstructive, and hypocritical, speaking of myself "forcing your standards" on an area, and then forcing your own "standards" yourself just because (I presume) you live here. You do not own any part of the map, as do I. And no, this road should not b...
	3	2024-12-17 14:43	kitsee ♦115	You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I am forcing my standard on this area because 80%+ of the mapping in a 2-3 miles radius around this changeset is my work so my work forms the standard of this area and I will admit I'm rather protective of it. Please understand from my prospecti...
	4	2024-12-17 18:07	SomeoneElse	It'd be greater to see a wider discussion about this, perhaps in the UK part of the forum c.osm.org? Are there photos available along this length (e.g. from Mapillary)?
	5	2024-12-17 19:49	kitsee ♦115	I agree, i've created a thread here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/residential-road-with-separated-lanes
160305258 by thebrad1111 @ 2024-12-17 15:21	1	2024-12-17 15:49	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
160291181 by Matt Aardvar @ 2024-12-14 20:34	1	2024-12-17 15:34	SomeoneElse	Hello, Just to let you know, I think that this edit might have introduced a gap in the "Dedham Vale National Landscape" relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9336585 . I've filled in the gap in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160305838 . Best Regards, Andy
	2	2024-12-17 15:51	Matt Aardvar ♦6	Hey That was inadvertent! I did think I checked it, but obviously not! Cheers Matt
127423020 by chris_debian @ 2022-10-12 15:22	1	2024-12-13 17:38	SomeoneElse	Hello, Here you've re-added a "highway-path" tag back to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/550162526/history which I'd marked as "note=Still nothing on this alignment" in the hope that that would stop someone re-adding it from some old imagery? I'm not quite sure...
159844014 by lukethesamo @ 2024-12-02 13:49	1	2024-12-13 09:47	SomeoneElse	Hello, I wonder if you have any idea how the "Way of Learning" relation connects to the coast? There's a gap in it at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11597074#map=18/54.912007/-1.375525 . Best Regards, Andy
160131859 by Verney Fields @ 2024-12-10 14:30	1	2024-12-12 23:42	SomeoneElse_Revert ♦71,974	This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160226819 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some obviously dubious edits in Stonehouse. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-user-creating-dubious-edits/122862
	2	2024-12-12 23:45	SomeoneElse	Hello "Verney Fields" and welcome to OpenStreetMap. OSM is a map of things as the really exist in the real world. It's not a vehicle for political argument or "satire". You're welcome to continue with OSM as long as you map sensibly, If you don't, you'll b...
160033487 by Richard @ 2024-12-07 16:53	1	2024-12-12 14:10	SomeoneElse	Thanks - from memory https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/109767/history / https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1VAb was never signed as NCN62 but was signed as TPT, so leaving it in just https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4139162 makes sense.
160094187 by lberges @ 2024-12-09 14:16	1	2024-12-09 21:16	streckenkundler ♦1,103	War da nicht was? https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16918
	2	2024-12-10 17:42	SomeoneElse	@lberges Please do discuss this in the forum. You know what will happen if you don't.
	3	2024-12-10 18:31	misterte ♦44	wieso hast Du hier Westfeld gelöscht anstatt es in addr:suburb=Westfeld zu ändern
	4	2024-12-10 18:50	lberges ♦89	@SomeoneElse, you can find the detailed discussion in the forum here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/sind-adressen-in-osm-amtlich-oder-postalisch/99332, where I describe what I do, why, and give examples.
	5	2024-12-10 18:51	lberges ♦89	@misterte addr:suburb ist n.m.M. ein überflüssiges Feld, es wird für die Adressierung eines Briefes oder Paketes in Dtld. nicht benötigt
	6	2024-12-10 20:59	misterte ♦44	hmm, mappen wir jetzt nur noch Informationen für die Zustellung von Briefen und Paketen ? Die Information Westfeld war vorhanden und sollte daher auch erhalten bleiben. Oder sollen wir jetzt auch die anderen 4,3 Mio. addr:suburb in D entfernen weil sie Deiner Meinung nach überflüssi...
	7	2024-12-10 22:13	streckenkundler ♦1,103	@lberges Du gibt keine Quellen für deine Änderungen an, die du anscheinend für deine Bearbeitungen nutzt! Der Beitragsfaden wurde bereits bei deinen Sperren genannt... wegen mir auch im Beitragsfaden https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/sind-adressen-in-osm-amtlich-oder-postalisch/99...
	8	2024-12-12 21:18	silversurfer83 ♦3,721	Ob das jetzt für die Post relevant ist oder nicht ist für uns zweitrangig. Lass die suburbs bitte in den Adressen
	9	2024-12-13 08:36	wies1 ♦172	Auch ich bin der absoluten Meinung, dass der Name von Ortsteilen einer Gemeinde / Stadt in addr:suburb einzutragen ist, jedenfalls in Deutschland.
160084668 by fwonp @ 2024-12-09 09:43	1	2024-12-10 14:17	SomeoneElse	Hello fwonp, You've added a house here, yet the changeset comment is "swimming"? I'm confused? Best Regards, Andy
160093545 by Simon Hobeck @ 2024-12-09 13:58	1	2024-12-09 15:28	SomeoneElse	Thanks!
160000227 by Simon Hobeck @ 2024-12-06 15:56	1	2024-12-09 10:27	SomeoneElse	Hello on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/724756959/history you've moved the surface tag. Would "surface=mud", "surface=sand", or even "surface=mud;sand" work here? Best Regards, Andy
	2	2024-12-09 10:34	Simon Hobeck ♦12	Thanks for asking -I was trying to remove mixed values so either "dirt" or "sand" could work. I was told its often better to clear ambiguous values so other could complete. Do multiple values work? I was trying to follow the guidance for surface area and it wasn't clear i...
	3	2024-12-09 12:18	SomeoneElse	If the surface here is "mostly mud" then I'd probably have gone with "surface=mud" (and "sand" for "mostly sand" nearby). If mutiple values are needed, then senicolons are usually used as separators. Data consumers have the choice whether to use the who...
	4	2024-12-09 12:30	Simon Hobeck ♦12	Thanks, that is useful - I wasn't aware of taginfo.osm.org. I'm happy to change the values for this area and now feel it may be best just to retain the previous value (I assume if there is a mix, then put the primary item first so the various apps can take that as the single value if th...
	5	2024-12-09 13:28	SomeoneElse	The previous value was a bit odd (comma rather than a semicolon) and so needed changing to something. What is the actual correct value probably depends on survey local knowledge or really good photos. If it was me and it looks like "mostly mud" then I'd use "mud" for the ...
160073021 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-12-08 23:09	1	2024-12-08 23:09	SomeoneElse	It is still listed at https://www.londis.co.uk/our-stores/strensall-service-station , but that might just be a matter of time.
160035333 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-12-07 17:58	1	2024-12-07 20:42	SomeoneElse	One thing that I noticed when doing this update was that some paths are signed on the ground as public footpaths but don't appear at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/53.7489/-2.0246/H/P (data from local councils via Rowmaps). I'm assuming that on-the-ground signage trumps...
160027107 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-12-07 13:33	1	2024-12-07 13:45	SomeoneElse	This section removed some dupicate abandoned railway that now forms Nidderdale Greenway. Most of the western section of Nidderdale Greenway is clearly exactly on the old railway alignment and was more accurate than the duplicate former railway that had been added from some iffy old map.
159973766 by TheUKHighStreet @ 2024-12-05 21:42	1	2024-12-05 22:41	SomeoneElse	Thanks for fixing!