| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 184034751 by b-unicycling @ 2026-06-12 22:09 ~ 2 days ago | 1 | ~ 2 days ago | SomeoneElse | Usual problem - townland etc. breakage - fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184053304 . |
| 2 | ~ 1 day ago | b-unicycling ♦288 | Thx. | |
| 184036324 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-06-12 23:33 ~ 2 days ago | 1 | ~ 2 days ago | SomeoneElse | For the signage of this, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13932273615/history . |
| 173070029 by Jonas Hansen @ 2025-10-09 22:09 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 days ago | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13205653012 seems to be a duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/775843296#map=22/27.6985323/-80.9006044&layers=V . Can you please tidy up after yourself? |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | Jonas Hansen ♦13 | Hi Andy, you're right — sorry about that. This came from our app's "add a missing place" flow: its duplicate check only compared the names of nearby nodes, so the station already mapped as way 775843296 under its BP branding wasn't detected. I've deleted node 1320... | |
| 183887070 by Jonas Hansen @ 2026-06-09 17:39 ~ 6 days ago | 1 | ~ 3 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello Jonas Hansen, You've set the source here to "Citypedia". Is that really the source (as opposed to the app used to add the data) and if so what is the licence associated with it?Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | Jonas Hansen ♦13 | Hi Andy, thanks for asking — that tag is our mistake. "Citypedia" is the name of our app (the same one identified in created_by), not a data source. The edit comes from an app user correcting the place from local knowledge, and the place data shown in the app is OpenStreetMap itself ... | |
| 183744668 by WarmedCord207 @ 2026-06-06 15:47 ~ 9 days ago | 1 | ~ 7 days ago | zyxzyx ♦23 | This change set ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183744668#map=17/37.788649/140.417075 ) should be reverted because it is unreal editing that the Fukushima JCT would have a fictitious roundabout. |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183983929 where the changeset comment is: Reverting what appears to be a couple of fantasy roundabouts; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183744668 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello WarmedCord207,Please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2026061110000811] WarmedCord207" explaining what your source for this roundabout was.Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 days ago | SomeoneElse | Halo WarmedCord207,Silakan kirim email ke data@openstreetmap.org dengan subjek "[Ticket#2026061110000811] WarmedCord207" yang menjelaskan sumber informasi Anda tentang bundaran ini.Salam Hormat,Andy Townsend, atas nama Kelompok Kerja Data OSM. | |
| 5 | ~ 3 days ago | zyxzyx ♦23 | Hello, everyone. Thank you for your efforts. | |
| 183642234 by squeaker_andrus @ 2026-06-04 12:17 ~ 11 days ago | 1 | ~ 4 days ago | SomeoneElse | Just for info, I've filled in a couple of gaps in http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=17295022 here... |
| 2 | ~ 3 days ago | squeaker_andrus ♦8 | Hello, SomeoneElse2! Thanks for your addition to the map.Have a nice day and happy mapping, squeaker_andrus | |
| 183750684 by CS-DC-MM03 @ 2026-06-06 18:18 ~ 8 days ago | 1 | ~ 8 days ago | CS-DC-MM03 ♦1 | Any help that anyone could provide implementing this correctly would be greatly appreciated |
| 2 | ~ 6 days ago | SomeoneElse | Looks like the coastline was fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183815605 - is it OK now? | |
| 183114222 by TsuriBY @ 2026-05-24 15:40 ~ 22 days ago | 1 | ~ 9 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello TsuriBY, and welcome to OSM!You've said in the changeset description "Corrected English name", but that's not actually what you actually did; I'm guessing that the gnome-maps UI doesn't make it clear what language you're editing.https://map.atownsend.org... |
| 2 | ~ 8 days ago | TsuriBY ♦1 | Hi,Sorry about that, yes that seems correct.Thank you for the correction | |
| 183716948 by WWMapper101 @ 2026-06-05 22:17 ~ 9 days ago | 1 | ~ 9 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,What was the source of your change here? Looking at the history https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12749774034/history , it was originally mapped as "shop=fish", changed by someone remotely without survey, and changed back following a complaint to the DWG.If you've been the... |
| 183293494 by North14 @ 2026-05-28 09:09 ~ 18 days ago | 1 | ~ 13 days ago | SomeoneElse | Looks like this introduced a gap in the Cotswold Way. I've filled in the gap in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183521302 . |
| 2 | ~ 13 days ago | North14 ♦21 | Damn, not again :-( - shouldn't happen. Good thing you're keeping an eye out. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the correction. Have a very good day. | |
| 183206592 by Anonomous46786532566 @ 2026-05-26 12:40 ~ 20 days ago | 1 | ~ 20 days ago | Car Tographer ♦6 | Hi, it looks like you deleted a footpath which seems to be visible on satellite images, running between the river Ouse and Egrets Way. Was this a mistake or does this not exist on the ground? |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | Anonomous46786532566 ♦1 | Well noted, yes this was an error. Thank you for correcting my mistake. | |
| 3 | ~ 20 days ago | Car Tographer ♦6 | I have done a partial revert of this changeset so the footpath should now exist on the map. See changeset 183209363. | |
| 4 | ~ 15 days ago | SomeoneElse | I've re-added the missing bit to the Sussex Ouse Valley Way - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183453260 . Does this look OK? | |
| 182878354 by Pernycek @ 2026-05-19 12:43 ~ 27 days ago | 1 | ~ 26 days ago | mcliquid ♦2,081 | Hallo Pernycek, in diesem Gebäude befindet sich keine Kirche / Andachtsort. Worauf beruht sich deine Information? |
| 2 | ~ 25 days ago | Pernycek ♦7 | Hello, from google maps and Wikidata its clear, that is place of worship. | |
| 3 | ~ 25 days ago | mcliquid ♦2,081 | Hallo, danke für die Antwort. Ich denke dir ist bereits bekannt, das Google Maps keine legale Quelle ist oder?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google#Google_Maps_terms_of_useDie Spitalkirche im alten Krankenhaus ist seit Schließung des Krankenhauses im Jahr 2002 nicht mehr &oum... | |
| 4 | ~ 20 days ago | Pernycek ♦7 | I know about the Google maps rule, but I I thought, I can use maps as a second source. Just to be sure.I fix the amenity, thanks. | |
| 5 | ~ 17 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello Pernycek,Ignoring Google Maps (Which we cannot use) and wikidata (usually likewise, for different reasons), what is your source for your edit here?Best Regards,Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group) | |
| 182778424 by AndyB_66 @ 2026-05-17 11:09 ~ 29 days ago | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | SomeoneElse | You've said "revert incorrect directionality editing" but have not said how you know that. The previous editor said "Lubartowska Street is two-way along its entire length."Without any actual evidence we'll end up with edit wars ad infinitum like https://map.atownsend... |
| 2 | ~ 17 days ago | SomeoneElse | Powiedziałeś „przywróć błędną edycję kierunkową”, ale nie powiedziałeś, skąd to wiesz. Poprzedni redaktor powiedział: „Ulica Lubartowska jest dwukierunkowa na całej swojej długości”.Bez żadnych konkretnych dowodów skończymy na wojnach edycyjny... | |
| 3 | ~ 17 days ago | SomeoneElse | Ah - I see a comment on https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/182785531 explaining the signage. | |
| 182610353 by Vojtěch Fošnár @ 2026-05-13 16:28 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | AndyB_66 ♦944 | Please use meaningful comments for your changesets: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments |
| 2 | ~ 17 days ago | SomeoneElse | @Vojtěch Fošnár what is "sync dev"? If you're importing data into OSM you must follow https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines . | |
| 170667311 by vmicho @ 2025-08-19 12:20 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | map per ♦1,324 | Hi vmicho,attraction=animal is not a sub tag for tourism=attraction. So tourism=attraction was not missing but intentionally not tagged as the individual enclosures in the zoo are not tourist attractions.Best regardsmap per |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | vmicho ♦91 | Hi. Every zoo I saw is mapped like this. It is logical - there are objects that are individual attractions inside any attraction park (rides in amusement parks, animals in zoos, ...).I do not see any problem here. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | map per ♦1,324 | > Every zoo I saw is mapped like thistourism=attraction is often used to tag for the renderer (1) an make the enclosures visible on the OSM Carto map.(1) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | vmicho ♦91 | WTH?they are individual attractions in attraction park. What is so hard to understand here? It is a legitimate use. They are not mapped for renderer!!! | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | vmicho ♦91 | And you are kindly ask to fix your nonsense. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | vmicho ♦91 | Hello there? | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | Rainero ♦812 | Hello vmicho,I just happened to see your comments.Looking at the wiki, I would say map per is right: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:attraction and especially the section "notes": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:attraction#Notes which explains: "This is not a su... | |
| 8 | ~ 29 days ago | vmicho ♦91 | You could in same way start removing attractions from attraction (trill park)?When I go an attraction park, I am looking for attractions, period.You should distinguish enclosures (e.g. for usual animal keeping, quarantine ...) and attractions (like here) anyway. It is logical.Also that you fou... | |
| 9 | ~ 29 days ago | vmicho ♦91 | Also if you want to start some kind of edit wars, better discuss it first, otherwise if is a map+others work sabotage. All zoos in the world are mapped with attraction. | |
| 10 | ~ 17 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here (we've been made aware of this discussion).Outside the DWG I've spent quite a lot of time looking at what OSM tags are used with what other OSM tags. "attraction=animal" on an animal enclosure within a zoo doesn't usual... | |
| 183152268 by MountMapper @ 2026-05-25 11:32 ~ 21 days ago | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | SomeoneElse | It looks like this edit broke a couple of cycle routes - see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11017#map=20/57.3458154/-4.0042718 .Also, is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37121135 really access=no currently? |
| 183330000 by Brían @ 2026-05-29 01:57 ~ 17 days ago | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | SomeoneElse | Oops - looks like this broke a bunch of relations such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11064743#map=20/53.3295359/-6.5297889 . I've split the bridge in two where the boundary joined and removed the extra bit from the 15 relations.Personally I find editing relations in Vespucci very... |
| 2 | ~ 17 days ago | Brían ♦3 | Hi Andy, thanks for noticing this!I haven't really looked into editing relations in detail, so since it showed the relations as having been modified I thought it just did it all correctly automatically!...Editing relations seems complicated to me too, guess I'l have to learn about it n... | |
| 183229614 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-05-26 21:27 ~ 19 days ago | 1 | ~ 19 days ago | SomeoneElse | Also ts2761a (Walsden 509 bus) and ts2762b (Todmorden) |
| 183148048 by Muskovian @ 2026-05-25 10:04 ~ 21 days ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | SomeoneElse | Here you say that https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 is no longer disputed by Morocco. What evidence do you have for that? |
| 183148239 by Muskovian @ 2026-05-25 10:08 ~ 21 days ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | SomeoneElse | Here you have changed the name of https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 from a mulitlingual version to just Spanish. Did you discuss that with both the Spanish and Moroccan OSM communities? |
| 183148302 by Muskovian @ 2026-05-25 10:09 ~ 21 days ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | SomeoneElse | Here you have removed a couple of alt_names from Parsley Island https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 . Can you explain why? |
| 183148350 by Muskovian @ 2026-05-25 10:11 ~ 21 days ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello Muskovian and welcome to OSM.Can you explain why you deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9520115/history here?Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group |
| 2 | ~ 21 days ago | SomeoneElse | Also, what does the changeset comment "lines" mean? | |
| 183155550 by Mateusz Konieczny @ 2026-05-25 12:36 ~ 21 days ago | 1 | ~ 21 days ago | SomeoneElse | You've got "type=multipolygin" in here.You could argue that "claimed_by" makes sense, but it is only claimed by one person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADt_Jedli%C4%8Dka , not any government. |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦9,964 | type=multipolygon now | |
| 3 | ~ 19 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦9,964 | I guess that this claimed_by= barely makes sense, but it is too close to claimed_by=random_twitter_user to bother mapping thisit is close to claimed_by=memeing_reddit_users on Kaliningrad | |
| 4 | ~ 19 days ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦9,964 | (at least in my opinion, if someone adds claimed_by= without fake borders I will not revert them) | |
| 180911967 by dod_basim @ 2026-04-05 18:55 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've moved the Hertfordshire Way and the other signed paths over to the parallel riverside paths in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183021991 - does that make sense to you?Best Regards,Andy |
| 182079192 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-05-01 15:08 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | tomhukins ♦290 | As ever, thank you for your helpful work improving the map. This changeset added "food:dogs=£2.75" which seems like an unusual tag, but I know this pub is dog friendly so it doesn't seem unreasonable.In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182459059 @mueschel decided to ... |
| 2 | ~ 25 days ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks for mentioning it! It's not the first time he's done that. I've previously had to explain that Bat Billiards was a different thing to billiards: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151567498 :) | |
| 3 | ~ 25 days ago | SomeoneElse | "bar billiards" even. "bat billiards" would be very different... | |
| 4 | ~ 25 days ago | tomhukins ♦290 | It briefly crossed my mind that perhaps there was another version of billiards I had never heard of, and I casually wondered how it might work, but it wasn't to be :) | |
| 5 | ~ 25 days ago | SomeoneElse | For completeness: https://www.mastersofgames.com/rules/bar-billiards-rules.htm :) It does see to be going through a bit of a revival. I was in the pub when the one at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116037001 was installed. | |
| 6 | ~ 25 days ago | SomeoneElse | (no bats involved!) | |
| 7 | ~ 7 days ago | VictorIE ♦1,154 | So, one player throws the billiard ball, their opponent hits it with a cricket bat and everyone in the pub ducks? :) | |
| 182459059 by mueschel @ 2026-05-10 10:18 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 26 days ago | tomhukins ♦290 | What is the "copy and paste error" you removed? As far as I can tell you only removed "food:dogs=£2.75" which seems like a useful tag to me, not a copy and paste error. |
| 2 | ~ 26 days ago | mueschel ♦7,185 | I'm pretty sure that there no dogs are served here.The value would also be something like 'yes' or 'takeaway', but not a price.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:food:* | |
| 3 | ~ 25 days ago | tomhukins ♦290 | Okay, I think you're saying I correctly guessed that "food:dogs" is the "copy and paste error" I asked about, although you haven't explicitly stated this.I know this pub is dog friendly and sells dog snacks, so maybe the tag was intended to convey that. However, ht... | |
| 4 | ~ 25 days ago | mueschel ♦7,185 | non-sensical things like this happen accidentially just too often to write messages to everybody.If your interpretation is right, appropriate keys might bepet_friendlypet:food | |
| 5 | ~ 25 days ago | SomeoneElse | @mueschel> I'm pretty sure that there no dogs are served here. I'll try and avoid channelling my inner Renfield (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDlFWoqU2_s ) but let me just say that you are incorrect here.Many pubs are dog friendly. Some offer snacks for dogs, but this is... | |
| 6 | ~ 25 days ago | mueschel ♦7,185 | Well, food:dog means that you can order dogs and eat them (compare food:chicken or food:soup)These tags are used elsewhere:pet_friendly = yesdog = yessells = dog_foodor a new tagdog_food = serveddog_food:fee = yesRegarding the price, I think the majority has a clear opinion n... | |
| 7 | ~ 25 days ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182968648 | |
| 182967742 by memmane @ 2026-05-21 10:10 ~ 25 days ago | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Are you sure that this still exists? The links on changeset/154996123 suggest "missing, presumed sunk".Best Regards,Andy |
| 182461066 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-05-10 11:10 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | LordGarySugar ♦290 | Should these tracks really be tagged railway=abandoned? There clearly isn't any track or railway features remaining so would surely be better mapped in OHM? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Re "There clearly isn't any track or railway features remaining" there very definitely is - a flat railbed making its way through cuttings and over embankments, with bits of railway detritus around where the bridleway-making wombles haven't tidied it up.Perhaps you should think... | |
| 3 | ~ 28 days ago | LordGarySugar ♦290 | the problem is that railway= is a top-level tag and conflicts with highway tags. railtrail=yes is a good tag to indicate that the bridleway follows a former railbed without misleading consumers that there are abandoned tracks remaining, which there clearly isn't. At the very least this should b... | |
| 4 | ~ 28 days ago | SomeoneElse | Quoting https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned : "Former railway; the track has been removed but it's still visible that there used to be a railway". That's exactly the case here. | |
| 176981135 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2026-01-08 11:47 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | Thanks!In the next few weeks I'll walk both loops, update what I can with StreetComplete and add the metal information=route_marker discs set into the footway. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/heavy-handed-rework-of-barbican-london/140254/7 , which suggests that a revert of some of the problem changes needs to happen. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | I saw that thread. It's unlikely that I'll have time next week, so hopefully it will all resolved before I do anything. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | trigpoint ♦2,672 | This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/177102231 | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | trigpoint ♦2,672 | This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/177102231 | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks. I'll let the dust settle before trying to join this up again - I suspect that there is more discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/heavy-handed-rework-of-barbican-london/140254 to come! | |
| 7 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | Uber are editing here again so it makes sense to fix the 3 routes to make it easier to spot breakage.City: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12890344 in 2023: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2pUV relation check: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=12890344&noCache=true&_n... | |
| 182534470 by Vandana@28 @ 2026-05-12 01:48 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I think that this edit has broken "Jubilee_Walkway_City_Loop" (relation 12890344). Have a look at https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=12890344 and you'll see the problem. That had problems beforehand (it was in 3 pieces) but is now worse (it is now in 6).Pleas... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | One other thing:You've added a kerb node at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13819691425/history , but there was already a kerb way mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/522699904/history . It would have made sense to add the kerb node where the crossing way intersects with the kerb ... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | Vandana@28 ♦8 | Hi Andy,Thank you for the helpful feedback and for pointing this out. You are completely right. We reverted the changes and we didn't get notified about relation breakage at the location in OSM ID editor.Deleted our standalone kerb node since the existing kerb already covers this locati... | |
| 4 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | Did you actually do anything here? I've fixed the gap and the kerb in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182743252 . | |
| 5 | ~ 28 days ago | Vandana@28 ♦8 | Hello Andy,Thank you for reaching out and for taking the time to flag this issue with the "Jubilee_Walkway_City_Loop" (relation/12890344). We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused by our edit. And thanks for fixing the relations from your end.We will check on possibilities... | |
| 182502387 by Uvasree @ 2026-05-11 09:34 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,A few things have obviously gone very wrong in the vicinity of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13817503042/history . These include:* pavement crosses building* pavement diagonally crosses kerb way (unlikely)* gaps created in route relations (I've fixed those here) |
| 2 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | To investigate the "what should be where" problems, I'd definitely recommend an on-the-ground survey. If your bosses are unwilling to bankroll that, then you might instead try looking for appropriately licenced photographs on e.g. Geograph or Mapillary.Also please use OSM UK's... | |
| 3 | ~ 28 days ago | Nirmala03 ♦5 | Thank you for your valuable feedback and for fixing the relation breakage from your end. Please note that Uvasree has currently paused contributing to OSM edits, who made this edit. We will check on building and kerbway allignment using avaialble sources. We will check on posibilities to use JOSM va... | |
| 182634238 by North14 @ 2026-05-14 07:52 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | Oops - looks like your addition of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1513376565/history broke NCN56: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/156406#map=20/53.4025835/-2.9856755 .Can You fill in the gap? |
| 2 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | And the Trans-Pennine Trail in the same place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4139229#map=20/53.4026703/-2.9857982 | |
| 3 | ~ 28 days ago | North14 ♦21 | Hi , thanks for keeping an eye out, and sorry for breaking a navigation path again. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to fix this gap. I tried, but without success. I guess I'm having trouble figuring out the right settings. Could you lend a hand again? Thanks in advance for your help. | |
| 182620835 by Simon Sustrans @ 2026-05-13 20:59 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=9476151 and https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=9476151 show a number of "stragglers" near Melrose - I guess that they should not be there any more? |
| 2 | ~ 27 days ago | Simon Sustrans ♦13 | Thanks, those stragglers have been removed. | |
| 182700222 by Geocrest @ 2026-05-15 13:53 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,This broke a couple of townland relations. I fixed them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182738663 . If you use the JOSM validator after each edit and tidy up any broken relations, this won't happen :)Best Regards,Andy |
| 182722232 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-05-16 01:02 ~ 30 days ago | 1 | ~ 30 days ago | SomeoneElse | Burn |
| 180863341 by EMIL AGHAYEV @ 2026-04-04 16:40 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like this edit accidentally added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/770821877 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7884303/history . That relation is a "relation of relations", and shouldn't have any ways in it. However, it is easy to do it accidentally.Best ... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hallo,Anscheinend wurde durch diese Bearbeitung versehentlich https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/770821877 zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7884303/history hinzugefügt. Diese Relation ist eine „Relation von Relationen“ und sollte keine Wege enthalten. Ein solcher Fehler ka... | |
| 182623197 by mcom-contributions @ 2026-05-13 22:40 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | woodpeck ♦2,670 | information boards do not have names. @mcom-contributions please fix these (there are many other bad uses of the "name" tag nearby, not only in this changeset) |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | mcom-contributions ♦4 | Thanks, I did notice this after the first batch so it is already in the program. I will manually fix these cases. There are also cases where name is added to a map, do you have any proposals on how to map that? or should I just go with `name` there | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | mcom-contributions ♦4 | *it is already fixed in the program | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Was the mechanism by which "mcom-contributions" submits updates to OSM discussed with the community anywhere? | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | mcom-contributions ♦4 | sorry for late replyNot in any public room or official channels, the mechanisms have been discussed with some community members who focus on importing data into OSM in private. My friend is already drafting the wiki page and i will not continue with submissions until it's done and all probl... | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | I suspect that at least you should be following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits and possibly also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines . | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | mcom-contributions ♦4 | Yes, we are working on it | |
| 179946827 by Sergei Amuzinski @ 2026-03-16 11:40 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Oops - you also need to complete the cycle route https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/61899#map=18/52.781454/-0.862904 ! |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Sergei Amuzinski ♦7 | Hi! Thanks a lot for catching that! I’ve just completed the cycle route relation based on your comment. I really appreciate the help. Best regards, Sergei. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Cyclists have to go the right way around the roundabout, so the southbound bit needs adding too. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | Sergei Amuzinski ♦7 | Thanks! This should already be fixed in my latest changeset 180862362. Please check if it looks correct now | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 182621234 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2026-05-13 21:17 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Actually, no: It wasn't an iD edit that caused this but a JOSM one, so iD is blameless here.There _is_ a validate button in JOSM which would have caught this before upload, but that button wasn't pressed... |
| 182569245 by North14 @ 2026-05-12 18:30 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I think that you might have forgotten to check route connectivity again. :)If you look at https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=68378 you can see at least one more gap than there was a few days ago.Also https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1512359940/history seems to be missing &... |
| 170369768 by inserteunnombreaqui @ 2025-08-13 05:37 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Why did you delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15969963/history and re-add https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1421957046#map=19/19.433810/-99.127993 here? What was wrong with the previous one? |
| 171839878 by inserteunnombreaqui @ 2025-09-12 16:05 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,The DWG has received a complaint about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1429276134#map=19/19.462473/-99.152047 saying that "this area is not one huge building". |
| 172067055 by Locator @ 2025-09-17 14:05 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Has https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9392750454/history really been turned from a public bookcase back into a public telephone? It seems unlikely... |
| 182161750 by FajrAl @ 2026-05-03 14:05 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | partially revert from 181214014, 181214055, 181451441, 181451609, 181451692, 181451756, 181700777 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Can you explain what the problem was here, what actual objects were in error? You have used JOSM's reverter plugin but not explained what needed reverting and why.(ref https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20251 ) | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | Hi DWG team, this changeset reverts the national boundary changes by uid=10458379. However, the user has since reapplied changes to the boundary.https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10458379 | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks | |
| 182057050 by FajrAl @ 2026-05-01 04:17 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | add postal_code on relation admin_level=7 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | What was the source of the data here (ref https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20251 )? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | https://github.com/ghofinka/indonesia-postal-code | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | Hi Andy, thank you for the feedback. I have provided detailed explanations in all the specific changeset comments you pointed out. I appreciate the link to the OSM Forum, and I’d also like to mention that we are very active in the Indonesian Telegram group (https://t.me/osmindonesia).Regar... | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks. The licence of that github repository (by an individual https://github.com/ghofinka ) is MIT, but what is the licence of the underlying data? The source of that is listed as https://www.nomor.net/_kodepos.php but that's just an ad-filled cesspit. I can't see where that got the d... | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | The postal code data is actually pulled from official government decrees, specifically Kepmendagri No. 100.1.1-6117 of 2022 and Permendagri No. 58 of 2021. Because these are formal regulations, they fall directly into the public domain under Indonesian Copyright Law (UU No. 28/2014), Article 42, whi... | |
| 57803098 by Mauls @ 2018-04-04 13:08 ~ 8 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Just checking - is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/69417373/history really a kindergarten? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Mauls ♦29 | Yes, that is what the building is now used for. | |
| 181847437 by FajrAl @ 2026-04-26 14:11 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | ajmat ♦221 | Revert of 181841695 |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | Ah yes, thank you. Forgot to mention it | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello (ref https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20251),Please do explain what a revert is for an what objects are in error.In this case a new user had added an unlikely motorway with their first edit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181841493 . It did make sense to revert the data (... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | Hi DWG team, I believe there might be a misunderstanding. This user added fictional military landuse in an area that is actually a protected forest and tourist attraction. Regarding the 'motorway' mention, this changeset does not involve any motorways. Could you please double-check if that... | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | FajrAl ♦431 | Dear DWG team, as you may notice, I have responded to all your comments. As this dialogue demonstrates, these issues are easily resolved through discussion. I firmly believe communication should come first, rather than blocking first and commenting later; consistent with the OSMF Ban Policy (https:/... | |
| 182033944 by North14 @ 2026-04-30 13:24 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | (somewhat related to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182032968 ) you've added a separate sidewalk https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1506893728 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1214633815 but haven't tagged that road as "sidewalk=separate" or similar. That's nece... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | See also comment at https://en.osm.town/@SK53/115017119561900374 "Unlike virtually every other #OpenStreetMap feature it [separate sidewalk mapping] is not resilient when incomplete." | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | North14 ♦21 | Thanks for your comments - in this case as well :-). I'll keep that in mind and add "sidewalk=separate" to my updates.P.S.: I fully agree that mapping separate sidewalks doesn't work when incomplete. | |
| 182032968 by North14 @ 2026-04-30 13:01 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like your edits in Llanberis have broken the Snowdonia Slate Trail. You can see the gap here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11114801#map=19/53.117194/-4.120413 .My recollection of this bit of Llanberis (from a while ago) is that there are fairly wide walkable areas. Whe... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | North14 ♦21 | Hi Andy, thanks for pointing that out. Sorry if I caused that break. It wasn't my intention. Can you fix it? I've never edited trails before. With the sidewalks and footpaths I’ve added, we’d just need to decide whether the trail should remain on the road or be assigned to one ... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Usually the positioning of the signs would tell you where the path should go? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | I've filled in the gap; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11114801#map=19/53.117194/-4.120413 . My recollection here is that you'd just "walk across the road" here, but it needs someone to Actually Go There to see where the signage points and adjust as necessary. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | North14 ♦21 | Thanks for the repair. I looked online for information about the signage position on the Slate Trail in Llanberis, but unfortunately couldn't find anything. I think you're right—we'll just have to wait until someone on-site checks the trail routing. | |
| 182023810 by therealzakie @ 2026-04-30 09:17 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,The route of NCN9 looks a bit confused here (and has done for a while): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1399870#map=15/54.42631/-6.43496 . Do you happen to know where it actually goes?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Ah - just spotted the EV1 here. I guess that that is correct for the NCN9 also? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | therealzakie ♦7 | You mean connecting Lurgan and Lisburn? Because I do not know sadly | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Ah - never mind. Someone will fill in the gap, I'm sure. | |
| 181838599 by brianh @ 2026-04-26 10:17 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,This changeset seems to have introduced a New York subway station in the National Botanic Gardens: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13763185198/history#map=19/53.373009/-6.273694 - connected by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tunnel_(1935_film) , perhaps :) |
| 182053423 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-04-30 23:05 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Also Strensall Common, ts2706b, 22/04/2026 |
| 180782693 by WanderedGems @ 2026-04-02 18:38 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | vricciardulli ♦38 | Hey WanderedGems I think you broke something in this relation. Can you please revert your changes? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | vricciardulli ♦38 | Hey WanderedGems, please review this changeset | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Purely accidental I'm sure - I have reverted it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182040260 . | |
| 169884727 by ceirios @ 2025-08-03 01:03 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | I never new that the Welsh name for Stornoway was the same as the English - I'd have expected something much closer to the Scots Gaelic one! |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Actually - just noticed wikipedia: https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ste%C3%B2rnabhagh - is "Stornoway" OK here? | |
| 181825359 by irishwill2008 @ 2026-04-25 22:27 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Thanks for updating this. There were a couple of townlands and a couple of parishes that shared the line of the previous road, so I've added in a new line https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1503887691/history and added them to that to fill in the gap.Unfortunately these "relation... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | irishwill2008 ♦1 | Hey Andy,Appreciate looking into this! I assumed that line was some road since I live in Delvin myself and that does not exist. You cannot drive between those if that makes sense? Of course I am completely new to this and only made the edit as I am a Software Engineer currently using OpenStreetM... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hi Will,The new bit I added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1503887691 isn't a road, it's just a "relation member" of those townlands and anglican parishes. You can see the faint line at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.585524/-7.135129 , but that map doesn't sh... | |
| 181381946 by LakePoopó @ 2026-04-15 18:28 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Jeffry Mardyo ♦8 | Jln Kpg Iboi / Pelandok functions to connect major villages (Iboi, Pelandok and Jaie) and should be secondary, road quite busy there. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | LakePoopó ♦10 | In order to keep discussion in one thread, I have replied to you on this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181674299), and also responded to your DM regarding your concerns. Thanks! | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Actually, rather than individual changeset discussions, the forum (perhaps https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/dear-adt-team-for-sarawak-please-do-better/143234 ) might be a better place.Best Regards,Andy Townsend on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | LakePoopó ♦10 | Thank you for the suggestion. I have now posted on the forum, to continue the discussion there. | |
| 181769034 by PulisakZ @ 2026-04-24 14:32 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Due to some other issues, the changeset that you were fixing was reverted here - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-review-added-the-british-overseas-territories-to-the-uk-and-uk-eez-relations/143296/5 . Can you recheck that whatever you were checking is now still OK?Best ... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | PulisakZ ♦52 | Hi Andy.Yes, this one I have updates is (still) OK :) Thank you! | |
| 181765719 by JonnyW03 @ 2026-04-24 13:30 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Please see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/please-review-added-the-british-overseas-territories-to-the-uk-and-uk-eez-relations/143296 and the replies that say "revert and discuss".I definitely think that there is a discussion to be had, particularly about "what sho... |
| 57514314 by abc26324 @ 2018-03-25 18:05 ~ 8 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | 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... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | dzidek23 ♦84 | Just added a small museum near Fillingham and have exactly the same question... are you sure there's a ridge there? I mean, from the aerial imagery there's nothing there. Is there a better way to mark this? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | I've removed the "natural" tag in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181713310 , and also added the wikipedia link. The wikipedia article picture is far more impressive than most of it! | |
| 181268152 by B Sai Deepthi @ 2026-04-13 10:17 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Something went very wrong here. You deleted part of a major road, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1216890479 . See http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=181268152 . |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | B Sai Deepthi ♦6 | Apologies for the mistake and Thank you for your valuable feedback. I will make sure to be more cautious in future. Thank you. B Sai Deepthi | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Just to be absolutely clear, Uber are expected to abide by https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines as described in detail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20146 . If you restart editing before fully complying with that you will be blocked again. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | B Sai Deepthi ♦6 | Thank you for the clarification. We understand the guidelines and will make sure to fully follow them before resuming editing. We will review the details and take the necessary steps to avoid any further issuesThank you.B Sai Deepthi | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Alas, editing resumed before Uber added OEG entries for this activity, hence https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20174 . | |
| 181656516 by Gangabhoolaxmi @ 2026-04-22 06:32 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Can you explain what "realign for testing" means here?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | Gangabhoolaxmi ♦1 | Apologies for the confusion. I accidentally moved a road segment and uploaded it with the comment “realign geo-testing.” I will avoid such mistakes in the future and ensure proper comments are added.Thanks & RegardsGanga | |
| 178803101 by Brian'sPants @ 2026-02-20 05:50 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,A bunch of trees were added with "denotation=urbanaccess=permissive_amenity=parking_capacity=58_capacity:disabled=2_covered=no_fee=no_operator=rogue_credit_union_operator:type=business_parking=surface_surface=asphalt" here, I guess that "urban" was meant?Cheers,Andy |
| 181469502 by RR80 @ 2026-04-17 17:24 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've updated the population here with a source of https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/wales/W06000023__powys/ . Under what licence was that data made available to you? The site you link merely says "© Thomas Brinkhoff" which of course would not be compatible with OSM ... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | RR80 ♦8 | Jesus effing christ. An 'explicit waiver'. How exactly are we obtaining that? So even providing a source isn't enough for you? How ridiculous. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | You can't just use something as a source that you "found on the Internet". See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright etc. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170 | |
| 181519071 by RR80 @ 2026-04-18 23:12 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've made this change with a comment of "Has town status.". What does that actually mean? Personally, I've always thought of Melbourne as a large village.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | RR80 ♦8 | How is that not obvious? There are numurous sources around the internet confirming Melbourne as a town as I have provided. Do you really consider your thought/opinion more deinitive than actual online evididence? How jumped up are you? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | > as I have provided? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170 | |
| 181466664 by RR80 @ 2026-04-17 16:12 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Rather than just "making a lot of changes" please do discuss things like this in the UK forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 . People may well agree that "town status" (whatever that means) is enough to change the OSM place tag, or they may not, but it i... |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | RR80 ♦8 | What exactly is there to discuss? It is factually correct that these places are considered towns, that should warrent the change by itself. You are clearly drunk on your power and are exactly what is wrong with these open source sites. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170 | |
| 180905806 by Ahmed Wali Deria Guled @ 2026-04-05 16:14 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Nothing will find https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9238774996 . You have not told OSM what it is.Also wikipedia is not a valid source for OSM because its licence is not compatible. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181761661 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious changes in Somali, Ethiopia. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20179 | |
| 181388502 by Ahmed Wali Deria Guled @ 2026-04-15 21:42 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | Ahmed Wali Deria Guled ♦3 | Hawd Zone located in Gashamo Hawd Somali Ethiopia |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | What is the licence associated with http://www.ethionsdi.gov.et/layers/geonode:ethipoian_zone ? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181761661 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious changes in Somali, Ethiopia. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20179 | |
| 181384811 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2026-04-15 19:39 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | SomeoneElse | Relation gap was subsequently filled in in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181385050#map=20/51.5021846/-0.0518008&layers=H . |
| 153427529 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2024-07-01 20:01 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | traffic_signals:vibration on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12026733766/history is now set to "no;yes"? Do you know which it is? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Nathan_A_RF ♦224 | Not sure how that happened. I will resurvey. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 160450485 by conordoremus @ 2024-12-20 21:38 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | traffic_signals:vibration for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2552295535/history is no set to "no;yes". Which is it? |
| 152059598 by MacLondon @ 2024-05-31 02:28 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12144623 still a thing? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48778174 seems to be closed. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | MacLondon ♦240 | Ah, I hadn't spotted that. I've changed the route relation to "disused".https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/ferry-services/tilbury-to-gravesend mentions theat it "will not operate until further notice" so it might potentially reopen in the future. | |
| 179868378 by stillhart @ 2026-03-14 17:23 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Are you sure about the name here? The pictures at https://www.mcarthurglen.com/ko/outlets/uk/designer-outlet-york/whats-on/ev-charging/ do not support the name that you have used. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | For more info on this sort of thing generally in OSM see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shops#Identity | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | stillhart ♦246 | I opened a pandora box with Supercharger naming with huge discussion. 99% of superchargers don't have a name on site. In the tesla community they are called by the location, so York Supercharger. This used to work well, but we have more and more cities with multiple, hence that naming breaks so... | |
| 179868359 by stillhart @ 2026-03-14 17:23 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12064695480 actually exists? For completeness https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5402530089 _does_ exist, but this seems to be a duplicate of it. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | stillhart ♦246 | As much as I remember yes. The below one is an older 150kw one and a new faster 250kw has been added. In Tesla terms they seem to be the "same". they don't seem to have a logic on when they "split" and when not. I think it was that picturehttps://x.com/TeslaInTheUK/sta... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | stillhart ♦246 | Maybe they should be related in OSM, would make it more clear. | |
| 180563305 by verdadescomopunyos @ 2026-03-28 23:57 ~ 2 months ago Active block | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181109944 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious changes in Mallorca. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20118 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | sommallorqui ♦7 | este barrio existe | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/betrunkene-near-mallorca/142877/34 for context; please add this back if it is correct. | |
| 180563314 by verdadescomopunyos @ 2026-03-28 23:58 ~ 2 months ago Active block | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181109944 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious changes in Mallorca. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20118 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | sommallorqui ♦7 | santa eulari es un barrio de can picafort y no tendria que ser eliminado | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/betrunkene-near-mallorca/142877/34 for context; please add this back if it is correct. | |
| 181109944 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2026-04-09 17:36 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 180563297, 180563305, 180563314, 180563323, 181039893, 181040167, 181040387. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | sommallorqui ♦7 | no entiendo porque me habéis eliminado todos mis cambios cuando yo no soy la persona que ha hecho vandalismo en el arenal | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | For context, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/betrunkene-near-mallorca/142877/34 | |
| 179139405 by b-jazz-bot @ 2026-02-27 16:29 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | I deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13569104410/history because it was an allegedly fake locksmith scam. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/allegedly-fake-locksmiths/142942/5 |
| 178322334 by aTarom @ 2026-02-09 17:21 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | I've deleting https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13536367893/history because it was an allegedly fake locksmith scam. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/allegedly-fake-locksmiths/142942/5 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | aTarom ♦953 | Thank you so much for handling this. This is the first time I've encountered this type of scam, and I will do everything I can to avoid making this mistake again. | |
| 178131170 by Tingas @ 2026-02-05 09:55 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | I've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13519247734/history because it was an allegedly fake locksmith scam. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/allegedly-fake-locksmiths/142942/5 |
| 179384681 by pedidos business @ 2026-03-05 08:36 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. It has been suggested that these businesses may not actually exist as real offices on the ground.If yo believe that they really do exist, please comment at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/allegedly-fake-locksmiths/142942 . |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hola, soy Andy del Grupo de Trabajo de Datos de OSM. Se ha sugerido que estos negocios podrían no existir como oficinas físicas. Si crees que sí existen, por favor, deja un comentario en https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/allegedly-fake-locksmiths/142942. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | pedidos business ♦2 | Si, deberías ir al lugar y comprobarlo | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | (!) | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | Jordi MF ♦1,821 | Necesitaríamos una fotografía de la fachada de la tienda para comprobar cómo es el negocio desde la calle. Un saludo. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | Hugoren Martinako ♦290 | Las imágenes que has subido a google maps de este negocio en concreto, son claramente generadas por IA. | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181135570 where the changeset comment is: Reverting alleged locksmith scam businesses. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/allegedly-fake-locksmiths/142942 | |
| 180685635 by DaveF @ 2026-03-31 17:44 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks |
| 180661378 by hakaka @ 2026-03-31 08:35 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | As mentioned in https://osm.org/changeset/173662814 , it looks like you're still joining landuse to ways again. It really isn't the preferred way of doing things (it's even on the "first level of the #questionableedits iceberg" - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/th... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | hakaka ♦6 | Only a few joinings of landuse to ways and only to minor roads. These hardly cause any problems for later editing.I do not always join landuse to ways as shown in this example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1490522628/history#map=17/61.902545/22.007611 and this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/... | |
| 180826372 by MoneyBadger @ 2026-04-03 18:44 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | For the avoidance of doubt, "google maps" isn't an appropriate source, though first party data on a first party website should be. |
| 180649192 by dudone @ 2026-03-30 22:09 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Just checking - is the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4077753#map=19/53.130350/-2.192330 a genuine gap in the path? |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | dudone ♦79 | Many thanks for spotting this error. It should now be fixed.Dudley | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 180806065 by DaveF @ 2026-04-03 11:10 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | It looks like you've deleted the Cotswolds just in time for Easter! :)Currently it's no longer a valid multipolygon since https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1013226614/history and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1013226612/history are partial duplications around https://www.openstreetma... |
| 180531679 by sociaal beleid-Stad Mechelen @ 2026-03-28 07:59 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,This defibrillator is in the middle of the Atlantic. Isn't it dangerous yo use one with so much water around :) ? |
| 169027772 by NTTrailsMEE @ 2025-07-16 18:29 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello, I think that something has gone wrong with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2346780305 here.Perhaps you are trying to suggest that there are two gates here? (I only remember one, but it's been a while).The "barrier" is tagged as "swing_gate;kissing_gate", which ... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | There are 174 examples of "locked=yes;no" in the UK, and all of the ones that I've seen so far at NT edits with Vespucci.The "locked" list is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2ni9 . | |
| 180564863 by Autonomia Załęsk @ 2026-03-29 03:27 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13687300383/historyhas no recognised OSM tags on it. Can you explain what it is?Best Regards,Andy |
| 180698734 by Nikhil kotiya @ 2026-04-01 02:26 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Are you sure that the address of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13697101302 is correct? Monmore Road is to the east, just south of the dog track: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73717871 . |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Nikhil kotiya ♦2 | fixing | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Alas, you only fixed this one address, not the 100s of other made-up addresses that you added, hence the need for a revert. | |
| 180702012 by Nikhil kotiya @ 2026-04-01 05:49 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | The postcode differs from that on the website? |
| 165117609 by gurglypipe @ 2025-04-18 15:18 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | For https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10411148 I'm guessing "Yetholm" rather than "Yeltholm" maybe?(I know that you didn't originate the name...) |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | gurglypipe ♦1,055 | Indeed, fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180662032 :) | |
| 180586286 by confusedbuffalo @ 2026-03-29 14:20 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 172129496 by confusedbuffalo @ 2025-09-18 19:14 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | I think you've mangled the operator on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/394544828/history - it doesn't seem valid UTF-8 |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | confusedbuffalo ♦381 | Thank you for noticing this and pointing it out, I had seen this error in a couple of other places and thought I had fixed all occurrences, apparently I missed this one.Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180586286 | |
| 178319092 by 小智智 @ 2026-02-09 16:06 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,What actually is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/163099441/history ? It was a "planned highway-track" and is now a "proposed railway", but it doesn't connect to anything?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | 小智智 ♦62 | It is a reserved space for new railway tracks, not used at this moment. | |
| 174301673 by michel60 @ 2025-11-06 18:18 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello michel60,You have incorrectly changed the farmland at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41809831 into a "farmyard". A glance at the imagery shows that it is definitely still farmland. In this changeset comment you have said "osmose 1310 `building=yes` à l'int... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Bonjour michel60,Vous avez incorrectement transformé les terres agricoles à l'adresse https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41809831 en « cour de ferme ». Un simple coup d'œil aux images confirme qu'il s'agit bien de terres agricoles.... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181097911 where the changeset comment is: Revert some errors created by a user blindly following osmose | |
| 180304189 by DaveF @ 2026-03-23 12:49 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | C'mon, "Removed duplicating FHRS as perpetrator was too lazy to do it themselves" so not going to win any friends or influence people that your way of doing things is correct. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | DaveF ♦1,636 | <Gallic shrug>I don't wish to "make friends" I want to improve the quality of the OSM database.Someone who's been mapping since '07 should know they should be correcting their own errors.Given the comments, I'm concerned about the quality of data in Sc... | |
| 177181735 by CrispByNature @ 2026-01-13 14:10 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. In this changeset you extended https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/938308562 via a series of nodes such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13452657355 .First things first, it isn't a public right of way. The one in this area can be seen... |
| 179667065 by KennyDap @ 2026-03-11 02:53 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | recoverpoint ♦4 | Why you make map mess again and again ? You input a lot of incorrect information to map . I'd told you before about this but you did it again. You can't distinguish the object correctly only with satelite image. As a example, the object you input as path again is not path but the fence ... |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | recoverpoint ♦4 | Stop making openstreet map useless with incorrect information, please. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | KennyDap ♦87 | Just leave me alone. You whine too much and don't contribute much. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello - @recoverpoint , could you please try and be a bit more specific? http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=179667065 visualises the changes here - what is wrong and what should be changed?@KennyDap , comments like yours above don't help, either. | |
| 177694076 by mvn28 @ 2026-01-25 18:47 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here - we've received a complaint about this deletion. What was added to OSM here was only what is visible from aerial imagery (that it is obviously a swimming pool, and obviously a private one). Continuing to delete it won't work because... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | mvn28 ♦1 | Hello,i guess you're joking - camouflage....if you tell me when the next satellite photo will be taken, I'll surely have it covered...Furthermore, and repeating myself, there's no visible pool on the photo in osm, you must have taken the Google ones for vectoring. And where are ... | |
| 177264884 by BiboORM @ 2026-01-15 15:57 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello, Andy from the DWG here. We've received a complaint about this and other "planned" metro edits of yours across Europe.Concentrating on this one first, what is the source of the data and what is the licence of the data from that source? You list https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | The second problem is that what is safeguarded is not a _line_ but an _area_ (actually, different classifications of areas - surface and subsurface). Rather than just adding a line I'd suggest discussing with the UK community in the forum how best to represent the data. That's what happe... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | If you'd like to email the DWG directly about this please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2026032710000556] BiboORM" with what you'd like to say in the message.Best Regards,Andy | |
| 180231230 by Pete Owens @ 2026-03-22 00:53 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | highway=footway already implies no access for other transport modes, so this edit will have no effect whatsoever on cycle routing software. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | Unfortunately that is not the case. For example cyclOSM renders paths where cycling is not allowed in grey as rather than brown. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | Tagging for the renderer is bad enough, but tagging for just one tile provider is absurd. It still has no effect whatsoever on routing. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | I am not tagging for one renderer - It is a problem with all cycle routers. I merely raised it as a concrete example to disprove your claim that the edit would have no effect. Indeed the usual reason that mappers take issue with explicit cycle access tagging is when they notice that a cycle rout... | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | CyclOSM is a raster tile provider, so it isn't an example of a problem with any cycle router. It doesn't disprove anything. If you feel that there is a problem with how it renders highway=footway in the absence of bicycle=no then it would be more appropriate to submit an issue or pull req... | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | tomhukins ♦290 | @rskedgell's suggestion of only tagging bicycle=no where it is explicitly signed, and adding additional tags to describe the signage, seems like the best approach here instead of tagging every sidewalk as bicycle=no.I would be interested to see examples of cycle routers sending cyclists alo... | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | Compare this illegal route:https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/123396180/#quietestTo a similar section with explicitly tagged prohibition:https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/123396186/#quietestSo it clearly does make a difference. Though it seems odd to say the least that someone shoul... | |
| 8 | ~ 2 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | Given that your first attempt to "prove" a routing problem was to refer to a lesser-used tile provider, I have to ask two questions:1) How long did it take you to contrive that?2) Have you logged a support ticket with @CycleStreets at https://www.cyclestreets.net/feedback/ | |
| 9 | ~ 2 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | I see you've also added bicycle=no to several highway=crossing nodes so you're clearly not too concerned about whether legal cycle routing along the roads crossed works any more. Adding access tags to intersection nodes is likely to affect all ways through that intersection. | |
| 10 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | > this illegal route:What illegal route? The Cyclestreets route that you linked to is suggesting that someone push their bike along the pavement apart from the sections at the very start and end! | |
| 11 | ~ 2 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | The claim was: "this edit will have no effect whatsoever on cycle routing software". Which is simply not the case. I offer not one but two different examples demonstrating that explicit tagging does indeed make a difference and folk continue argue, despite the clear evidence that data ... | |
| 12 | ~ 2 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | You've given one example of a routing service where you have an issue and one tile provider.The obvious places for you to raise these issues are with the providers of these services, not by adding redundant tags for the renderer/router to the OSM database.Alternatively, you could create... | |
| 13 | ~ 2 months ago | Richard ♦228 | "you must anticipate cyclists will ride that route rather than read the small print disclaimer"It is not our job to second-guess UI decisions made by data consumers. | |
| 14 | ~ 2 months ago | matt_ellery ♦80 | "If a cycle router returns a route showing a pavement highlighted in a big thick green line then you must anticipate cyclists will ride that route rather than read the small print disclaimer that:"Cycling in this section is not permitted."Also, "not permitted" is not str... | |
| 15 | ~ 2 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | The problem isn't with Cyclestreets but with the underlying OSM data (ort rather lack of data). Cycle access is undefined by default for footways in OSM so in the absence of any explicit tagging cycle routers treat them as legitimate routes - hence the importance of explicit cycle access taggin... | |
| 16 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | > Cycle access is undefined by default for footways in OSM Untrue. `highway=footway; footway=sidewalk` makes it clear what the legal situation is. Where have you read that cycling on a `highway=footway; footway=sidewalk` is legal? If a router was assuming that (and you have presented no evide... | |
| 17 | ~ 2 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | Even if it were true that cycle access were undefined on highway=footway without an explicit bicycle=* tag (and it isn't), you'd need to do the following:1) provide credible evidence of a routing service which actually does this, and2) demonstrate that you had actually made some attemp... | |
| 18 | ~ 2 months ago | jayaddison ♦34 | @[Pete Owens] tagging the footway as bicycle=no appears to have the effect of causing the CycleStreets router to suggest to the user that they should ride on the road regardless of the riding style (quiet / fast) that they select.Is that what you intended, or would bicycle=dismount be more appro... | |
| 175254673 by kesterlester @ 2025-11-28 20:49 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Just checking - are https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13339241127 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13339241129 definitely two different markers and not the same thing? Also, what does https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13339226556 actually look like?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | kesterlester ♦13 | Yes, nodes XXX27 and XXX29 represent two separate plastic gas pipeline markers which are about a meter apart under a tree. They are not an accidental duplication of each other. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | kesterlester ♦13 | And XXX59 is a strange sort of oil pipeline marker whose strange style was invented to make them fit in better with the countryside. Although they are actually made (I think) of white painted concrete, they are meant to look like (and they do loook like) a wooden stile (the sort you use to walk into... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | kesterlester ♦13 | PS - the XXX56 node also has a tall vertical post with a black and yellow hat on it, which makes it visiible from the air. Hence recorded as "aerial" marker. | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Someone's found a picture: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/marker-stile/142518/7 - I can see why people might get confused! | |
| 7 | ~ 2 months ago | kesterlester ♦13 | Indeed. That's the sort of thing. There are loads of them, mostly for the oil network. I have posted another comment on that discussion. | |
| 180109695 by Calasanz @ 2026-03-19 13:48 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Ahem: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/143 ("Hay dualidades" I think). |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Davileci ♦127 | https://registroentidadeslocales.mpt.es/REL/frontend/inicio/municipios/2/13394/25 | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | Davileci ♦127 | https://registroentidadeslocales.mpt.es/REL/frontend/inicio/municipios/2/13394/25 | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | @Davileci How is that relevant, and how does it negate the signage visible at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/143 ? | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | Davileci ♦127 | https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/dudas-varias-sobre-la-toponimia-en-las-regiones-de-espana-y-dibujo-del-mapa/121272/20 | |
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | Davileci ♦127 | What is the name of the village: the two given by the autonomous community or the one given by the village itself recognised by the State? Look at the streets signs and you will see none or few catalan names. | |
| 180028812 by Adam Edwards @ 2026-03-17 21:20 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Looking at the Kingfisher Way in Arlesey http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=1494247 it's still not clear whether it uses the road parallel to the A507 or the footpath?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | Adam Edwards ♦25 | I was going by this source of info which shows the path as using the station footbridge to cross the railway. https://ldwa.org.uk/ldp/members/show_path.php?path_name=Kingfisher+WayThere is no foot crossing of the A507 road between the bus stops (it would be far too dangerous given speeds, there a... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Ah - thanks. I guess we can leave the extra parallel bits north of the A507 until someone can explore there... | |
| 180421262 by kiwibes @ 2026-03-25 18:10 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | NeisBot ♦7,369 | Hi kiwibes, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 97% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:- 36 building(s)Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake... |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Looks OK to me.The "number of objects deleted" is large because some buildings with a large number of nodes (presumably circular) were deleted. They were likely temporary structures and there's no obvious evidence for them on available imagery. | |
| 180445058 by SomeoneElseSC @ 2026-03-26 09:47 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | user_1344 ♦2 | I edited this to correct the full situation last night on the computer, which is far easier, and what I shall do in the future. Anything that doesn't appear in SC I shall do on the computer. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! That's what I do too. | |
| 158448641 by Puckle @ 2024-10-28 10:20 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,What was the source of the name on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328760770/history ? I've changed it to Giblin Lane based on OS OpenMap Local, as the previous name just looked like a placeholder. What was the source of that name?Best Regards,Andy |
| 154112485 by bnj384 @ 2024-07-18 17:47 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,What is the source of the name for this? It doesn't look like it is signed at the war memorial end when I walked past a couple of days ago, and I've never seen signage at the other end.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Where "this" is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/139814060 ("Loverose Street"). I can see references on Geograph https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Loverose_Street,_York but suspect that that name has just been copied from Google.Was the name here actually surveyed?\... | |
| 179103131 by fedc @ 2026-02-26 20:30 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | notmyproblem1 ♦195 | Ciao, come hai fatto a rilevare dove si trova la curva?Grazie. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | notmyproblem1 ♦195 | Mantieni la history dei segmenti.Scopri di più:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | fedc ♦48 | Il tracciato è ovviamente approssimato, ho seguito le tue indicazioni nella correzione. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello fedc,It does look as if you have redrawn https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27316986/history as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1483538254 . It would be better if you could keep the history.Best Regards,Andy | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Ciao fedc,Sembra proprio che tu abbia ridisegnato https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27316986/history come https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1483538254. Sarebbe meglio se potessi mantenere la cronologia.Cordiali saluti,Andy | |
| 180152830 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-03-20 10:55 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | SomeoneElse | Also ts2526a |
| 179854860 by Flynn Marquardt @ 2026-03-14 12:20 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | It'd be ever so helpful if the changeset comment was "Fix member role of (way number name or description) in (relation number name or description". |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Flynn Marquardt ♦48 | Let explain what I try to do and why I not write relation and way numbers in description:- many of my edits are fixes in admin bounders found e.g. on https://nightwatch.karlas.si/- many edits like this one affect only one relation or way, so I think it's unnecessary to mention that in the c... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | None of that changes the fact that replacing "Fix member role." with something that described what you did would be helpful. | |
| 157829963 by Pete Owens @ 2024-10-13 11:16 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Could you perhaps explain a bit more about the change to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/1305133832 here? "cycle access" doesn't really explain it.What was the source of your edit? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | UK traffic law | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | And, in the case of that particular stretch of cycleway the markings are clearly indicating one way use. The cycleway forks off the carriageway - which would be dangerous in the opposite direction. The cycle symbols face in one direction, the give way markings all apply in that direction.Furthe... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | What about the northbound signage? | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | If you approach northbound (and at every crossing) then what you see is a large upside down cycle symbol and double dashed line give way marking across the whole width of the cycleway. If it was a two-way route then what you would see would be the above just on the right hand side and a right way up... | |
| 178831301 by RR80 @ 2026-02-20 18:36 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Two points:a) this is not a "road alignment" change it's an armchair change from unclassified to tertiaryb) based on survey, tertiary is not justified here.I'll revert this and some others; please discuss any such future changes in the forum on a case by case basis. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 179832897 where the changeset comment is: Reverting numerous undiscussed road category changes. See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2261940 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19961 | |
| 179257638 by rhhs @ 2026-03-02 14:32 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | Monolo23 ♦10 | Hi, according to the OSM naming guidelines, localized names may be stored using name:<language>=* when they represent an official or commonly used name in that language.For example, “Aeropuerto de Sofía” is the established Spanish exonym for Sofia Airport and should be tag... |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | rhhs ♦216 | I removed the Spanish name of the airport because the official name is Васил Левски (Vasil Levski). If the official Spanish name is different than Vasil Levski, it can be added.I removed the English and Spanish names of Obelya metro station because they are not different from the one in... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | Monolo23 ♦10 | It's okay that the official name of the aiport is Васил Левски, but in Spanish as many other language, we don't say Vasil Levski, we say "Aeropuerto de Sofía" as the name:es is the common name of a place not the official_name=* that is a different tag, that, sho... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Regarding the English name, the airport's own website https://sofia-airport.eu/en/about-us/history/ suggests that the English name is "Sofia Airport". Maybe the website was mostly written before the rename, but you'd think that it would get a mention at https://sofia-airport.eu/... | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | rhhs ♦216 | The rename is recent, so not all pages of the airport's website are updated. It is mentioned on the home page: "Parking made easy at Vasil Levski Sofia Airport: ..." "Sofia Airport" is of course used a lot (the previous name of Vrazhdebna was never popular), including in the... | |
| 178995107 by Fjana @ 2026-02-24 15:31 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | LordGarySugar ♦290 | I'm not sure this is appropriate for OSM - it's not a serious proposal, is it? There's no way this is ever being built and it's not proposed by any governments. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | Fjana ♦41 | I am not sure either, but I have seen other proposals mapped out.While it is not a government proposal, it is not a necessarily an obscure idea either. It has recieved a press coverage, has its own Wikipedia article and Wikidata code, and is based on a research paper.I am not arguing it shou... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,This really doesn't make sense as a "proposed" feature. See the caveats on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed for more details about what sort of "proposed" things make sense in OSM.I'd suggest deleting it from OSM, but it's worth noting th... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179769897 . If anyone wants to make a map with this in they can use Overpass and date the query to yesterday. | |
| 179307071 by ramthelinefeed @ 2026-03-03 15:13 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | The Ring of Gullion way had a bit of a gap in it so I filled it in in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179663186Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | ramthelinefeed ♦87 | thanks! I haven't edited the Ring of Gullion for many months, so that gap could have been there a long time :) Good to have it fixed. | |
| 178885367 by NeisRevert @ 2026-02-22 05:33 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks for reverting |
| 179502209 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-03-07 17:16 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | The car park building is visible under construction from Esri and Mapbox imagery, but was actually completed a couple of years ago. The car park extends west out of the building. It is unclear how the parking aisle crosses Steeton Brook; my guess is that that is completely covered now (I didn&... |
| 178998875 by Wleka02 @ 2026-02-24 16:54 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!If the things that you are drawing are rectangular - and I'm guessing that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1482610940 etc. are - you can square them up by pressing "q" in the editor.Best Regards,Andy |
| 178047585 by Simon Sustrans @ 2026-02-03 12:06 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | You wouldn't happen to know if the sign at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9047561434 is still there or if it has been taken down, by any chance? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Simon Sustrans ♦13 | The sign may have been modified. I am relying on reports that a route section has been changed on the ground so that it is no longer part of the NCN, typically by the red number patch being covered. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | I'll have to go and have a look the next time I'm in the area. | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Ha - well, the current state can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/2954c6ef-1c9b-4322-97b0-9da37777c139~1.jpg . One of the 166 references has been stickered over, one hasn't (or perhaps the sticker fell off or was removed). | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | Simon Sustrans ♦13 | Thanks Andy, maybe they ran out of stickers? According to WWCT records, that section is complete for removal of red patches. | |
| 178643492 by migonso @ 2026-02-16 18:33 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | JonnyW03 ♦11 | Hi, What is your reasoning for the reversion of my edits about the territorial waters to the east of Gibraltar?These are international through the ratified 1958 Convention on the Territorial Seas and Contiguous Zone, Article 3, which I cited as a source.Do I need to get the DWG to sort this ou... |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | JonnyW03 ♦11 | I also add that the reason it looks like this is that the UK has decided not to expand Gibraltar's territorial waters to the 12 nautical mile mark, therefore leaving it at 3. This does not mean that it is Spain's to take. Please refer to my cited article. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | migonso ♦4 | Estimado Jonny:Como bien sabes, la convección de 1958 no dirime la situación de la soberanía de la colonia de Gibraltar, por lo que sus límites ordinarios de 12 millas no son aplicables en este caso.La única base jurídica válida es el tratado de U... | |
| 4 | ~ 3 months ago | JonnyW03 ♦11 | Good evening Miguel,I am well aware of the status of the Treaty of Utrecht, and the Spanish government's position on this. However, this is not a treaty which is widely accepted by the international community. The 1958 convention has been signed by Spain in 1971, therefore invalidating any ... | |
| 5 | ~ 3 months ago | migonso ♦4 | Estimado Jonny:Tu apreciación es incorrecta y tus comparaciones son falsas.La convención de 1954 (https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1971/12/24/pdfs/A20882-20884.pdf) no contradice en absoluto el status de Gibraltar, que sigue siendo una colonia y a la que el Tratado de Utrech sólo... | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | JonnyW03 ♦11 | Hi, I'm not sure if you're aware but you deleted the median maritime boundary between Ceuta and mainland Spain, something which while not visible is essential as contains a lot of metadata, such as time zone boundaries etc. I'm aware that we disagree on certain matters, but I'm... | |
| 7 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Whenever international boundaries are in question, it's definitely worth discussing in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/ rather than just using changeset discussions - that way more people will be aware of it. | |
| 8 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Siempre que haya fronteras internacionales en cuestión, definitivamente vale la pena discutirlo en el foro https://community.openstreetmap.org/ en lugar de solo usar discusiones de conjuntos de cambios; de esa manera, más personas estarán al tanto. | |
| 178839092 by JSR1781 @ 2026-02-20 23:31 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've undeleted it as "disused", but are you sure that there is something still there? The links on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154996123 suggest "missing, presumed sunk".Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | JSR1781 ♦7 | Hello Andy, i don't really know about the place here but i undeleted it to the last version before being deleted.I just undeleted it because this node is important. | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | SomeoneElse | I guess it was important when it was a PIRATA buoy, but what is it important for now (assuming it's not at the bottom of the Atlantic, which alas is likely) | |
| 174322735 by NTTrailsSW @ 2025-11-07 08:56 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I suspect that the highway=steps tag got accidentally removed from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/687378500/history . I've re-added it - hope that is OKBest Regards,Andy |
| 178466188 by foxysrider @ 2026-02-12 16:36 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks for filling in this gap. I'm assuming that the other two cycle routes also follow this path, which gives as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1318928#map=16/51.54373/-2.63821 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9540148#map=17/51.544247/-2.640468 and https://www.openstreetmap.o... |
| 61874764 by MacLondon @ 2018-08-22 03:12 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | What exactly is a "route=administrative"? I'm looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1549115/history and am confused... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | MacLondon ♦240 | The LCN+ links in London were continuous (numbered) corridors that were used to plan the entire intended cycle network in London. These included existing + aspirational alignments for cycle routes. Numbering would change whenever a line crossed a borough boundary.The idea for these links was tha... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Ah - thanks for that. | |
| 177331499 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-01-17 11:29 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | oliatc ♦1 | This post says 66; white letters within a red square |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Brilliant, thanks!Just checking - no brackets around the 66 implying "on the way to"? | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | oliatc ♦1 | No brackets, 66 is pointing to Walsden (1.5m) and Hebden Bridge (4m) along the canal. The numbering/font matches exactly with the signs on /way/83425821 | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks - quite the outlier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11237#map=12/53.7592/-2.1763 ! | |
| 178430138 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-02-11 23:48 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Also includes 11 bus into town |
| 178237278 by Boggedy @ 2026-02-07 17:17 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Just wondered is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20187045 spelt OK? ("d" rather than "t")? |
| 178116233 by Rc1314 @ 2026-02-04 23:57 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OSM!Just to let you know, there's a bit of a bg in the iD editor where it doesn't warn you if gaps appear in boundary relations like for example Iveruss https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445228 here. I fixed that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/1781... |
| 178050925 by Alex0708 @ 2026-02-03 13:30 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | NeisBot ♦7,369 | Hi Alex0708, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:No primary map features.Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred ... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | woodpeck ♦2,670 | User deleted their own contributions. -- Alex0708, this is obviously an automated data import, please follow the OSM import guidelines and discuss with the community before you act. If you plan to regularly delete and re-create the staging areas like you did now, this will almost certainly be a no-g... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | pitscheplatsch ♦6,658 | Hallo, willkommen bei OSM.Ist das ein Revert vom eigenen (Import?) Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174555726GrüßePascal | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | Alex0708 ♦2 | Hi all,Please excuse the confusion,No—this is not automatic input. I received the data from FRAPORT some time ago and entered it. I think it can be useful to identify the staging areas.Now, a lot has changed in recent weeks and the staging areas have been redefined. It was too diffic... | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | The procedure for "I received the data from X" data is generally https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines .I'd expect discussion to include whether the data is accurate (presumably yes) what tags are best, and does anything else need mapping at the same time. It likely... | |
| 6 | ~ 3 months ago | woodpeck ♦2,670 | Hallo Alex0708, bitte melde dich doch in dieser Diskussion zu Wort https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/import-von-staging-areas-auf-dem-gelande-des-frankfurter-flughafens/141552 und erkläre Sinn und Charakter dieser Daten, damit die Community entscheiden kann, ob sie sie behalten will. Intere... | |
| 175863310 by VLD319 @ 2025-12-12 21:18 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | Adding #CrosswalksMaybeMissing does not excuse adding decorative sidewalks which are at best useless for pedestrian routing. Please either map them properly or not at all. As I actually use OSM-based pedrstrian routing in London for planning runs and walks, contributions like this are unhelpful and ... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | RVR015 ♦29 | Feedback receive - we will take a look at it this today. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | RVR015 ♦29 | *Feedback received - we will take a look at this today. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | VLD319 ♦12 | Hello rskedgell, I apologize for any inconvenience. I have extended and connected the footways to address the issue. Changeset #178027339. Thanks, VLD319 | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello VLD319 - please take another look (see e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#21/51.42443/-0.01403 which has updated - OSM Carto has not yet for me). There's a crossing there at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8257543236/history that is disconnected from the two new ways ... | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | RVR015 ♦29 | Appreciate the call out, SomeoneElse. The team will add in the driveways and add a map note on the sidewalk stating driveway mapping is in progress. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | As I was there on Sunday morning and it was fresh in my memory, I've made a few little tweaks and added two crossings of Beckenham Hill Road (one with accessibility features, one without).Adding the driveways would be very helpful, thanks.Next time I'm in Beckenham Place Park for a... | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | VLD157 ♦33 | Hello everyone, I have mapped all of the driveways I could verify along this section of Beckenham Hill Road in changeset 178062300. Hope this helps! Thanks, VLD157 | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | Thanks @VLD157 ! | |
| 177962210 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2026-02-01 12:44 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 177906150, 177906255, 177906300, 177906543, 177906623, 177906713, 177916769, 177916829, 177916849, 177916870, 177916892, 177935356, 177935386, 177935416, 177935478, 177935501. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | If anyone would like to discuss this with the DWG please email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of “[Ticket#2025102210000455] 177962210” . | |
| 177844392 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2026-01-29 12:05 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Actually - I suspect it might have been rerouted. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2293737#map=17/55.647246/-4.813637 . I asked the person who added the new names in the earlier changeset. |
| 168259530 by Mertlík Vojtěch @ 2025-06-29 10:40 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Erm - "office=goverment" for a "building=houseboat" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1410525442 ? |
| 172383162 by 3D打印 @ 2025-09-24 09:19 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Can you please explain why you changed the "name" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470459862/history in Arunachal Pradesh?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | 您好，请问您能否解释一下为什么更改了阿鲁纳恰尔邦 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470459862/history 上的“名称”标签？此致，安迪 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | 3D打印 ♦4 | I just think that since China controls the upstream areas of the river, they have the authority to make changes on their own. If this has caused you any inconvenience, thank you for your criticism and feedback. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | What actual evidence do you have for that any part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470459862/history is controlled by China?AS I said at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19719 you really should discuss this in the forum . | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | 3D打印 ♦4 | Yes, I've realized my mistake, so I'll be gradually correcting the edits I made in Arunachal over the next while. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this caused you.With the most sincere | |
| 177674320 by Friendly_Ghost @ 2026-01-25 09:50 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | AndreaDp271 ♦148 | why removing the name of 12394712927 ??? Do you know what are you doing?? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | AndreaDp271 ♦148 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12394712927 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦658 | It's a descriptive name, already implied by the amenity tag. It's not the name of this place specifically, and assembly points are usually not named. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦658 | I meant the emergency=assembly_point tag, not amenity. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | AndreaDp271 ♦148 | Given the discussion with the Venetian community, I ask you to fix your mistake | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | AndreaDp271 ♦148 | hello? | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | For completeness, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . No name shows on https://www.comune.castelfrancoveneto.tv.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/aree-di-emergenza.pdf , just the reference "R". | |
| 8 | ~ 4 months ago | AndreaDp271 ♦148 | The name is based on the symbol and can be seen at the bottom left of the PDF. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Isn't that what the OSM tag is for, though?We don't include the word "restaurant" in the name of every reataurant. | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | AndreaDp271 ♦148 | It looks like an assembly point, but it isn't. There's nothing official about it at the moment. | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | Friendly_Ghost ♦658 | We've come to an agreement on the OSM Veneto Telegram chat. See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Civil_Protection_Areas for Andrea's tagging proposal for these objects. | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 177490636 by sim2000 @ 2026-01-20 18:53 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from the DWG here. Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems here that have caused one of the locals to contact us. For reference I'm using http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=177490636 to see "before and after" of this change.One issue that I can see w... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | I've fixed the two most serious problems in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177845809 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177846221 .The "30mph limits that should be 20" obviously need someone to survey them properly on the ground. | |
| 177729349 by Chris Ladds Historian @ 2026-01-26 17:13 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Is there really a gap in the Ayrshire Coastal Path at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1756394#map=19/55.432354/-4.713113 (perhaps a rockfall or something)?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Chris Ladds Historian ♦1 | This is an oversight that has arisen from the decoupling of the beach points to create two distinct beach areas, one of which bears the name Brackenbrae Bay. This has led to a disconnection of the coastal route, which is unintended. I will rectify this immediately. | |
| 177785770 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2026-01-28 01:30 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | It looks like this ans some post box tags were inadvertently added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130414569 |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | That explains it - I've restored the original post office node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5743772095/history and moved it to a likely location. | |
| 177808848 by NeisRevert @ 2026-01-28 14:47 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | pitscheplatsch ♦6,658 | You're welcome. | |
| 173898679 by misterte @ 2025-10-28 19:14 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | hmkaiser ♦58 | Warum machst du diese sinnvollen Ergänzungen einfach so kaputt? "brigde:name=" ist laut OSM-Wiki dafür vorgesehen, Nebenobjekte, hier Railway-Vektoren, ebenfalls, mit dem Brückennamen zu versehen, der bereits durch ein Hauptobjekt, hier "man_made=brigde", prim&aum... |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦268 | @hmkaiser: Ich bin gegen dieser Änderung und sehe bridge:name nur als nötig, wenn die Brücke schon nicht als Umriss bzw. Relation eingetragen worden ist. | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | hmkaiser ♦58 | Sorry, aber das ist Unfug. Würde diese Argumentation zutreffen, wäre der Eintrag "bridge=yes", der ja bereits in dem "man_made=bridge" steckt, in den entsprechenden Vektor-Abschnitten der High-,Railways auch nicht mehr nötig. | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | misterte ♦49 | bridge:name wird nur benutzt, wenn die Brücke nicht als man_made=bridge erfasst ist.Das ist reines Mapping für den X-Plane Flugsimulatorhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173452718 | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | hmkaiser ♦58 | Kann man nur staunen. Ich belasse es mit Sachlichkeit und dem einleitenden Satz aus dem Wiki:"Mit bridge:name=* wird der Namen einer Brücke angegeben, wenn name=* bereits für das Hauptobjekt wie eine Straße oder eine Eisenbahn verwendet wird." | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦268 | Auch im Wiki: "Durch die Verbreitung von explizit mit man_made=bridge kartierten Brücken hat dieses Tag an Bedeutung verloren, da der Brückenname nun im Standard-Tag name=* für das Brückenobjekt verwendet wird. "Für mich liest es eben so, dass bridge:name nicht... | |
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | hmkaiser ♦58 | Hallo Manuel,natürlich hat dieser Eintrag an Bedeutung verloren. Das heißt aber umgekehrt nicht, dass "bridge:name=" völlig nutzlos ist. Ich komme aus der IT und arbeite täglich direkt mit OSM-Datenextrakten. Wenn ich Highways, Railways selektiere, liefert mir OSM zw... | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦268 | Weil du das bridge:name wiederhergestellt hast...Ich selber habe hierzu einen Overpass-Code erstellt, mit der man alle Wege auf der Südbrücke lädt:https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2eGDEs ist also sehr wohl möglich, alle Wege, die auf der Brückenfläche liegt, auch ohn... | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | hmkaiser ♦58 | Hallo Manuel,du solltest dir bewusst sein, dass wir sachlich solange nicht zueinander finden können, wenn du Edits von GKremp einfach so löscht, nur weil sie DIR nicht gefallen. Wenn Gkremp, aber auch andere, einen Edit "bridge:name=" erstellen, kann ich das aus meiner Sicht ... | |
| 10 | ~ 7 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦268 | Hallo hmkaiser,du solltest dir bewusst sein, dass wir sachlich solange nicht zueinander finden können, wenn du Edits von misterte einfach so zurücksetzt, nur weil sie DIR nicht gefallen.Jetzt mal ernst und ohne Echo: Ich gute Gründe angegeben, welche Probleme bridge:name mit s... | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from the DWG here.@misterte Please don't argue about something as ridiculous as this. According to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/111682889 someone added a name to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111682889 . That name makes sense; it matches https://... | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | misterte ♦49 | Hallo Andy,ich habe den Namen entfernt weil er schon auf der separat mit man_made=bridge kartierten Brücke https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369428486 vorhanden ist. Auf die Wege kommt der Name nur wenn keine separat kartierte Brücke vorhanden ist. Ich habe mich dabei anhttps://wiki.... | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Many wiki pages just reflect the view of the person that wrote the text and are never effectively reviewed - this appears to be one of those.I am sure that most people would agree that having a name on a `man_made=bridge` object makes sense. I suspect where fewer people agree is about removing ... | |
| 177779014 by SomeoneElse_Revert @ 2026-01-27 20:14 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Actually, ticket Ticket#2026012710000541 |
| 175312277 by ceirios @ 2025-11-30 13:13 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I wonder if the `checkpoint=hiking` tag has crept onto https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12086089044/history by accident?Hiking checkpoints https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:checkpoint aren't much of a thing in the UK (the only other one is at the Hay end of the Offa's Dyk... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | ceirios ♦113 | Hi Andy,Thanks for this! My guess this was probably glued onto something and I must’ve connected it by mistake - certainly not my tagging!I’ll have a look when I finish workDiolchCeirios | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | ceirios ♦113 | I've removed the tag - thank you! | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 177629591 by Thosewhoknow @ 2026-01-23 23:15 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've nudged https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3236462244/history slightly south to make https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4280408#map=20/52.6479168/-9.3162372 a valid multipolygon again.Best Regards,Andy |
| 177580022 by sim2000 @ 2026-01-22 19:35 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from the DWG again:More feedback from the locals - apparently the northwestern part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1469590576/history is "gorse/woody shrubs and rocky outcrops" (so perhaps natural=scrub in OSM) and the southeastern part "is indeed a grassy field... |
| 124897288 by The_JF @ 2022-08-14 17:37 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've removed highway=bus_stop from https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9953084903/history , as it's actually the "PTv2 stop position" and the actual bus stop is actually there as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/972310424/history .https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/... |
| 177472610 by *Martin* @ 2026-01-20 11:59 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | ¿qué? |
| 177462926 by PulisakZ @ 2026-01-20 08:02 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks - fixing this restored 1 Anglican parish, 8 townlands, 3 civil parishes, 2 baronies, and 2 counties! |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | PulisakZ ♦52 | Thanks :) | |
| 173662814 by hakaka @ 2025-10-23 09:02 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | Sakari_N ♦141 | Tässäkin landuse-alueet on liimattu tielinjaan kiini? Miksi? Tämä on väärin ja vaikeuttaa karttadan käyttämistä sekä päivittämistä jatkossa |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | hakaka ♦6 | Havaintojeni mukaan tämä ei vaikeuta karttadatan käyttämistä eikä päivittämistä. Päinvastoin, monissa tapauksissa se helpottaa päivittämistä. Joten voitko perustella kantaasi hieman tarkemmin? | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | Sakari_N ♦141 | Jos kumpi tahansa noista muuttuu, tie tai maankäyttö niin ne tarvii ensin irroittaa toisistaan (unglue ways) ja sen jälkeen muokata. En myöskään usko että jämijärventiellä kasvaa tien keskilinjaan asti metsää, joten kartoitus on siltä ... | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | hakaka ♦6 | Irrottaminen on erittäin helppoa eikä se hankaloita päivittämistä juuri ollenkaan. Jos tie ja maankäyttö ovat irrallaan, täytyy yhden viivan sijasta muokata kolmea viivaa, jos esim. tien linjaus muuttuu.No niin. Nyt tullaan tähän tien keskilinjak... | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | Sakari_N ♦141 | "Jos tie ja maankäyttö ovat irrallaan, täytyy yhden viivan sijasta muokata kolmea viivaa, jos esim. tien linjaus muuttuu."Normaalisti tien ja maankäytön linjat muuttuvat erillään toisistaan, jos vaikka pelto muuttuu metsäksi tai päinvastoin ni... | |
| 6 | ~ 7 months ago | Sakari_N ♦141 | En myöskään ihan hahmota argumenttia siitä, että tiehen liimamatta jättäminen olisi liian vaikeaa. Toisaalta olet kuitenkin kartoittanut esim tällaisia 500m² nurmialueita, joka tosiasiassa on puoliksi asfalttia. Yhtä hyvin tuossa olisi pellon voinut ... | |
| 7 | ~ 7 months ago | hakaka ♦6 | Ei tuo välin jättäminen maankäytön ja tien väliin vaikea olekaan kartoittaa, mutta usein se on resursseja tuhlaavaa. Jotkut kartoittajat jättävät tuollaisen välin jopa metsäautoteiden ja metsän väliin. Tällaisia kohteita vasta han... | |
| 8 | ~ 7 months ago | Sakari_N ♦141 | "Teihin liimattujen alueiden erottaminen ei ole ollenkaan vaikeaa. Yksinkertaisin tapa on poistaa koko alue."Noniin, tähän ehkä tiivistyy tragikoomisuudesaan tämä jääräpäinen tapasi tehdä asiat mahdollisimman huonosti. Jos ensimmäi... | |
| 9 | ~ 7 months ago | hakaka ♦6 | Vastaan vielä tähän, mutta sen jälkeen päätän omalta osaltani keskustelun tästä aiheesta tähän, koska kommenttisi muuttuivat epäkohteliaiksi. "tämä jääräpäinen tapasi tehdä asiat mahdollisimman hu... | |
| 10 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | On the question of gluing landuse to roads, I think most mappers nowadays would try not to do it. Also, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dresidential#Separation_from_roads says "It is strongly discouraged to glue landuse to road lines. Glued landuse makes the data much harder t... | |
| 11 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Kysymyksestä maankäytön liimaamisesta teihin, mielestäni useimmat kartoittajat nykyään yrittäisivät olla tekemättä sitä. Myös https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dresidential#Separation_from_roads sanoo: "Maankäyt&oum... | |
| 12 | ~ 4 months ago | hakaka ♦6 | Thank you for your comment,It is true that most mappers nowadays do not glue landuse to roads. But is it strictly forbidden and incorrect or just not recommended? I usually try to map so that the landuse overlaps the road if the same landuse continues on the other side. | |
| 13 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Very little in OpenStreetMap is "strictly forbidden". However, it is a collaborative project - we need to work together to create the best map. If one person is doing something that other people find really annoying, it is common courtesy to stop. | |
| 169783461 by vogelfreier @ 2025-07-31 17:50 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm a bit surprised by the "vehicle=agricultural" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/948841343/history . That suggests that anyone can use the track "for agricultural purposes". What's far more likely is that it is just private?Best Regards.Andy |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | vogelfreier ♦102 | Hello,In retrospect, it could also be that up to the missing building, there is something like ‘no private access’ and then ‘access=agricultural’ into the cattle pasture?! Perhaps because farmer X does not live there and he has a right of way to access it.Regards, R&u... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | There isn't really such a thing as "access=agricultural" in England and Wales. Sometimes access along lanes like this will be private, and sometimes people keeping sheep will rent fields off each other , but their access doesn't make it "not private". Sometimes there ... | |
| 177347425 by Grayson Braham-Dopwell 89054 @ 2026-01-17 18:30 ~ 4 months ago Active block | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | BCNorwich ♦5,213 | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.Are you sure these power lines actually exist? I can't see them on any imagery. If they aren't real, can you please remove them?Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,845 | Hello, latest Dopwell sock puppet. You do not appear to have got the message conveyed by the 10 year DWG blocks on all the previous accounts you've used to vandalise OSM with fictitious power lines.neildopwell https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16681Grayson BD https://www.openstr... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Blocked in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19496 and reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177373210 . | |
| 157115647 by AlaskaDave @ 2024-09-26 08:40 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Please don't use ChatGPT to make up English names for e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7252225925/history . If something doesn't have a name in English; that's OK - we don't need to invent one for OSM. If anyone wants to translate or transliterate an actual name they... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | AlaskaDave ♦178 | I use AI generated infrequently. But I wonder if this is any worse than the historic practice of using the :th-Ltn version of the name for name:en? Even though name:th-Ltn is meant to be more pronounceable than the original Thai, it's often utterly meaningless to a non-Thai speaker. | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | The "name:th-Latn" is a version of a Thai actual name - I wouldn't expect it to be easy to pronounce by an English speaker., the same way a French person might struggle with "Hampsthwaite" or an English person with "Fermanagh".The problem with any "made up n... | |
| 177304435 by dankarran @ 2026-01-16 15:57 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Just checking - is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1467626781/history really part of the Millennium Way? It looks like it just goes into a field? |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | dankarran ♦113 | Good catch, removed | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks - is it actually a "public_footpath" in IoM terms too? The corresponding bit of access track isn't: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60545840 | |
| 74515153 by thetornado76 @ 2019-09-16 07:10 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | Hello,The name that you have added on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261186702 looks like the personal name of someone who lives there. If that is the case, please don't do that - see osm.wiki/Mapping_private_information .Best Regards,Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | Oops - wrong changeset!Sorry about that | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | thetornado76 ♦180 | You're right about the names, that looks really strange and should be deleted. However, the user has not been active for many years. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Yes, I commented on the original changeset to give them a chance to comment. These names were spotted as part of a DWG ticket where someone spotted a large number of other imported names (now deleted).If no reply, we can remove the name and redact. | |
| 172026892 by Paul Scriven @ 2025-09-16 17:10 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Not sure how it happened, but I suspect that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13147807436 is a duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12857301617 (with a bit more info)? |
| 177218932 by Simon Sustrans @ 2026-01-14 13:02 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks for tidying this up. I'm guessing that the short section at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11237#map=20/53.7511319/-2.1480591 should no longer be in NCN68 either?I've also added a fixme to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12084029747 (which I added a year ago) because i... |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | Simon Sustrans ♦13 | Well spotted! I have removed that short section. | |
| 176953980 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2026-01-07 17:30 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,The gate at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8988179995/history seems a bit confused. It has "locked=yes;no" and "width=3.65;1.05".If there are two gates, I'd map them separately.Best Regards,Andy |
| 176960832 by Mom Tomahawk @ 2026-01-07 21:09 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Looking at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/302714101 , that was previously a stream and then changed to river with a comment of "Various additions and fixes". It was then changed back to stream with a changeset comment of "Modified features". Neither of... |
| 171191416 by kaleidoscopica @ 2025-08-29 15:41 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Looking at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/302714101 , that was previously a stream and then changed to river with a comment of "Various additions and fixes". It was then changed back to stream with a changeset comment of "Modified features". Neither of... |
| 177281610 by Mom Tomahawk @ 2026-01-16 03:27 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello Mom Tomahawk and welcome to OpenStreetMap!Please do use better changeset comments than "Modified features". Instead, say what you modified and why, and what source you used. |
| 176723566 by Mom Tomahawk @ 2026-01-02 00:05 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | kaleidoscopica ♦44 | Once again, Mud Creek is a wide waterway, and the river tag was correct. You may want to continue to refresh the distinction between river and stream: you can jump over a stream, but not a river. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rivers |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Regarding rivers vs streams, I'd definitely suggest discussing it in the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 and get a third and more opinions! | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | kaleidoscopica ♦44 | The discussion has been done plenty before - a quick search on the community forums yields quite a few results, in multiple languages. I'd recommend reviewing the existing discussion and, if you feel more is needed, opening a new topic with your thoughts/concerns. | |
| 4 | ~ 4 months ago | SomeoneElse | No - I'm suggesting a specific discussion about these streams in the USA forum. | |
| 5 | ~ 4 months ago | kaleidoscopica ♦44 | From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway=stream the wiki guidance is: "Use waterway=stream for a naturally-forming waterway that is too narrow to be classed as waterway=river (the commonly accepted rule for OpenStreetMap is that a stream can be jumped across by an active, able-... | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | kaleidoscopica ♦44 | For what it's worth, here is some of the existing (global) discussion:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/river-or-stream/92512/10https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rivers-streams-and-water-area/100895https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/stream-to-river-transition/97832https://c... | |
| 174508668 by honapak @ 2025-11-11 12:30 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/788299903/history is now wheelchair=yes;limited - do you happen to know which it is? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | honapak ♦6 | Thanks for pointing this out. I've changed it to wheelchair=yes in 177261835, but I'm not totally sure so I've also added wheelchair:description as well. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 177219478 by FinleyTheWolf @ 2026-01-14 13:19 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | NeisBot ♦7,369 | Hi FinleyTheWolf, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 98% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:- 114 building(s)Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by ... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | @NeisBot this change looks OK; the previous one was the problem. You can see that in the area around https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1467064038 in http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=177219478 . What is in OSM now matches ESRI and is slightly offset from Bing. What was there before match... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | pitscheplatsch ♦6,658 | Thank you for your detailed review, @SomeoneElse | |
| 177148543 by Zenzor @ 2026-01-12 17:44 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | NeisBot ♦7,369 | Hi Zenzor, welcome to OSM!Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 85% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:- 20 building(s)Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | In at least one example the deletion here is OK and the previous edit by another mapper was dubious. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176332487 | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | pitscheplatsch ♦6,658 | Thank you for your detailed review, @SomeoneElse | |
| 176332487 by padvinder @ 2025-12-24 01:25 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello padvinder,You added a few buildings here 22 days ago, but they really don't seem to exist on the Bing imagery now. As an example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1460891851/history was deleted - on the imagery I can see an adjacent building that another mapper added https://www.opens... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hallo padvinder,Je hebt hier 22 dagen geleden een paar gebouwen toegevoegd, maar die lijken nu niet meer op de Bing-afbeeldingen te staan. Zo is bijvoorbeeld https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1460891851/history verwijderd. Op de afbeeldingen zie ik wel een aangrenzend gebouw dat een andere mapper ... | |
| 3 | ~ 4 months ago | padvinder ♦73 | no | |
| 177243034 by Tewuzij @ 2026-01-15 03:28 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello Tewuzij,Just checking you actually did visit Kyrgyzstan to make this edit. Your changeset says "source=survey" and that is what StreetComplete and SCEE are for - actually making edits in person.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hallo Tewuzij, ich wollte nur sichergehen, dass du tatsächlich in Kirgisistan warst, um diese Änderung vorzunehmen. In deinem Änderungssatz steht „source=survey“, und genau dafür sind StreetComplete und SCEE gedacht – für die Bearbeitung vor Ort. Viele Gr&u... | |
| 177095332 by Tewuzij @ 2026-01-11 13:05 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | (follow-on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19373)Hello,Can you describe these changes in a bit more detail? "Update roads (108 changes)" doesn't really describe what you did or why you did it - please use a better description of the changes that you were making.B... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | (Anknüpfend an https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19373)Hallo, könnten Sie diese Änderungen bitte etwas genauer beschreiben? „Straßen aktualisiert (108 Änderungen)“ beschreibt nicht wirklich, was Sie getan haben und warum. Bitte geben Sie eine präz... | |
| 171451508 by E bd @ 2025-09-04 12:44 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,From looking at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/653647238 , I just wondered why you removed the building name here. Was it wrong?Best Regards |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Merhaba,https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/653647238 adresine baktığımda, bina adını neden kaldırdığınızı merak ettim. Yanlış mıydı?Saygılarımla | |
| 175029273 by Adam Edwards @ 2025-11-23 14:48 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | I'm guessing that this and the others at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2iAx should be zebra not "zenra" :) |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Adam Edwards ♦25 | Yes. Typo. I don't know how to find and correct this. The link goes to some computer code which doesn't appear to do anything (which may be as I've never seen this before.) Please change or give me a street location as there's lots of crossings in Leighton Buzzard. Thanks. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | This one is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/851522242#map=19/51.917125/-0.658083 .The query is an Overpass Turbo one for all examples of that spelling - it is useful for finding spelling errors where only a few are found. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | Adam Edwards ♦25 | Can I assume the spelling error has been corrected where made? | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | They have now... | |
| 176892302 by World_Winner @ 2026-01-06 08:34 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We've had a complaint from a local resident that you've deleted a path that actually exists.Please provide details of the sources that you used to make these edits. If you can do that publicly please comment here; if you can't ... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | More detail: The deleted path can be seen at http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=176892302 .Previously the DWG was involved with edits here because of complaints that a path that did not exist was added through a wall at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1184613232 , and photographs were p... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | World_Winner ♦78 | Hi SomeoneElseThank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | World_Winner ♦78 | Hi SomeoneElse, thank you for your feedback and sharing the resources regarding the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. The removal was due to us receiving user feedback, but I’m in full agreement on the availability of reliable imagery sources. Changeset reverted to its previous state. I apprecia... | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks for that. However, you've said "the removal was due to us receiving user feedback" but not said what feedback you actually received?I'm surprised that someone could send a message to a group of editors such as yourselves and have that taken at face value without any che... | |
| 6 | ~ 4 months ago | World_Winner ♦78 | Hi SomeoneElse,To clarify, the feedback we received internally stated: “There is no path here; it needs to be removed from around [55.8943858, -4.6164967].”TomTom staff is mainly considered trusted sources and unfortunately this was a rare case where the feedback was inaccurate, ... | |
| 150897661 by SomeoneElse @ 2024-05-04 20:47 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Buses indicated as stopped here now stop from ED instead from 20:30 in the evening. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Except just now a bus has picked up at 2050 from EB.Maybe stand in the middle and be prepared to run left or right? | |
| 126152086 by Andy_W @ 2022-09-13 20:52 ~ 3 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | I'm guessing that this might be a victim of the pesky "off by 1" error in the spreadsheet - This is allegedly "Micklefield" yet it is very near "Middlesmoor"! |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Andy_W ♦10 | I agree this looks like Middlesmoor STW as Micklefield STW is close to the A1M south of Wetherby, but my involvement is "in passing". The original addition seems to have been made by OSM user Welshie (Changeset #117887694). I guess iD invited me to update old tags on the STW whilst saving ... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks - I think that this one got missed because I think that people used the name in the overpass query when searching for data to fix! | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | OK - I've confirmed the name "Middlesmoor" matches the coordinates in the current version of the import spreadsheet that Welshie used (the original had the off by one error in it). I've updated the ref on the "real Micklefield" (which had the right name). The one belo... | |
| 163106660 by Dominic Findlay @ 2025-03-02 00:36 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm a bit confused by the change here to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/224164207 - the cycleway by the side of the road is now "bicycle=no; foot=no". That seems unlikely?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | (see also comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145120734 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141126341 ) | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Dominic Findlay ♦4 | Hi, They moved the cyclist pick up point earlier in the year, closing the path alongside road at the time.I used the cycle service when this happened, supposedly the reason is unsafe levels of pollution, and they had been wanting to move it for years. The path is still there, but you aren&... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | Dominic Findlay ♦4 | Also I'd add, the path is rendered in grey instead of the blue or red. Which I think correctly shows its there but not accessible | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | Dominic Findlay ♦4 | I had just been to both sides of the path.No cycling and no pedestrians signs have been added to the entrances to this path. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | Dominic Findlay ♦4 | No fence or gates however | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 68350530 by mueschel @ 2019-03-20 19:24 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | You've said "Remove buildings that were uploaded twice. Remove private information such as if people own a mobile phone or a vehicle" but you've left the names, I think? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | I've removed and redacted the ones that I could find. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | mueschel ♦7,185 | Thanks - I don't remember what happened here so long ago. | |
| 169479111 by ist410 @ 2025-07-25 22:38 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | sorcrosc ♦423 | It looks like you are copying opening hours form Google or Facebook. Are you allowed to do that? |
| 2 | ~ 10 months ago | ist410 ♦5 | Morning. Honestly it's a good question, I thought about it. I've added the websites as a source of information. If there is no website, then based on the social media (Facebook and Instagram). And if there is nothing, then yes, Google Maps. 1. Google Maps: I've checked, it seems, yo... | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | ist410 ♦5 | I've decided to delete all links to both Google Maps and Facebook. I'll add the source of the opening hours and in these cases I'll set it to 'survey'. As I mentioned, I'll visit these places and verify information. | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | sorcrosc ♦423 | Thank you very much. I appreciate your effort. | |
| 5 | ~ 10 months ago | silversurfer83 ♦4,105 | Hi there :)one more thing: Why did you delete the coffee truck? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13017817335cheers --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169479111 | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | ist410 ♦5 | I saw the comment from the another user regarding this cafe. I've deleted it as I haven't find any 'fresh' information on this cafe. I will not do such actions in the future, I swear:) This cafe is on the map now. | |
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | silversurfer83 ♦4,105 | We can map these temporary "street vendors" or food trucks. There's tags to show they only show up certain times so it's ok to map them. If they should stop showing up, it's ok to delete them.safe travels | |
| 8 | ~ 10 months ago | ist410 ♦5 | Thanks for explanation! | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | HelloA selection of things around Oxford https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2iz0 are now "cuisine=community_centre". Was that deliberate, or just an accident?Best Regards,Andy | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | ist410 ♦5 | Hi! Yes, it was. I noticed that there were a couple of places with the same tag https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cuisine#values. At the same time 'cuisine' is one of the tags used in combination with cafes and restaurants. So I thought that it would be appropriate to add the tag with... | |
| 11 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | If you've actually been to a place, and know what cuisine it serves, then please do add "cuisine=coffee_shop" (or whatever else would be appropriate). However, I don't think that "community_centre" is really a cuisine in its own right - it doesn't really help unde... | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | ist410 ♦5 | In most of the cases there are the random dishes prepared from the local products, literally from what they have in their fridges. Is it okay to update the value to the 'local' instead of 'community_centre'? | |
| 13 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | "local" sounds better, but it's perfectly OK not to add a cuisine tag if one doesn't really apply.For some I'm sure a cuisine will apply (for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6446051034 in Reading is a restaurant that is part of a social club / community centre, ... | |
| 14 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Actually, one more question - I was wondering why https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4004988761/history got edited here? | |
| 174707297 by kevinmcg @ 2025-11-15 23:08 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Erm, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10804350642 has "no;yes" for crossing markings - I suspect that it should be one or the other! |
| 175635126 by ramthelinefeed @ 2025-12-07 18:24 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | I'm confused by "crossing=traffic_signals;uncontrolled" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/91037215/history ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing?uselang=en-GB suggests that one tag means "traffic lights" and the other says "no traffic lights"?Ch... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | ramthelinefeed ♦87 | I suspect this was just a case of selecting the wrong proferred option in the ID editor! | |
| 177066259 by Palgrave Peter @ 2026-01-10 15:43 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 176973595 by Rupert Swarbrick @ 2026-01-08 08:14 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,It looks like the Orange Way got a bit confused as a result of this https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2izw - I've rerouted it around the back of the college again like it was a couple of days ago https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2izv .Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Rupert Swarbrick ♦6 | Oh drat, I'm sorry for mangling this. Thanks for fixing it again. | |
| 176430256 by World_Winner @ 2025-12-26 10:18 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Would it be possible to provide a bit more detail about why you made this edit (and all your other ones)? "Fixed highway issue" doesn't say anything, "#maproulette" just says that you didn't actually survey it and "#tomtom" is just who you work for. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | World_Winner ♦78 | Hi SomeoneElse,Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | World_Winner ♦78 | Hi SomeoneElse, thank you for your valuable feedback. Writing good and effective changeset comments is a topic we are currently addressing within the team, and your message clearly demonstrates to me the value of this practice. I will use this as a learning and improvement opportunity to be a better... | |
| 176981639 by Palgrave Peter @ 2026-01-08 12:03 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,A gap seems to have appeared in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1216650#map=19/51.050944/0.597351 - presumably https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1464873396 needs to be split in two with the western half added to the relation? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Palgrave Peter ♦21 | Your right, I missed that. I've fixed it now. | |
| 176597938 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-12-29 20:44 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | JezCrow ♦173 | This Shopmobility does mobility scooter hire AND sales though, is there a tag that would encompass both? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | That's a good question - I've not heard of a shopmobility that does sales as well. Searching https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/shop#values for "mobility" finds a few options; "medical_supply" is obviously a bit more generic. | |
| 173871994 by Anonymous36863 @ 2025-10-28 08:52 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Can you explain the "cusine" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13192384226 ? It is a pharmacy, not a restaurant.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Здравейте,Можете ли да обясните етикета „cusine“ на https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13192384226? Това е аптека, а не ресторант.С най-добри пожелания,Анди | |
| 176951607 by JonnyW03 @ 2026-01-07 16:21 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Something (over the period of serveral years, actually) has gone wrong with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12890344 . I've patched up what I can, but there's still a gap at the Barbican. A few years ago it did this: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2irU but now there is a gap:... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | trigpoint ♦2,672 | This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/177102231 | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | trigpoint ♦2,672 | This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/177102231 | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | trigpoint ♦2,672 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 177148430 where the changeset comment is: DWG Revert Barbican Edits | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | trigpoint ♦2,672 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 177148461 where the changeset comment is: DWG Revert Barbican Edits | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | trigpoint ♦2,672 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 177148724 where the changeset comment is: DWG Revert Barbican Edits | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | trigpoint ♦2,672 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 177148865 where the changeset comment is: DWG Revert Barbican Edits | |
| 172917036 by ramazan yorulmaz @ 2025-10-06 14:16 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Can you explain the naming of the objects added here http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=172917036 ?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Merhaba,Buraya eklenen nesnelerin isimlendirilmesini açıklayabilir misiniz? http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=172917036Saygılarımla,Andy | |
| 176902709 by Tewuzij @ 2026-01-06 13:18 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Can you explain in more detail what you actually fixed here? If I look at http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=176902709 I only see deletions, not fixes.Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hallo, könnten Sie bitte genauer erläutern, was Sie hier genau behoben haben? Unter http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=176902709 sehe ich nur Löschungen, keine Korrekturen.Viele Grüße, Andy | |
| 175506090 by run'n'ride @ 2025-12-04 16:50 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | letsridebikes ♦73 | Why are you still doing this? You've been asked so many times to stop |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from the DWG here again (as also in https://osm.org/changeset/139049543 ). The best way of tagging this is "highway=footway; footway=sidewalk". If you do that you don't need to worry about what it is a path for, so you don't need to add an explicit "access=no&... | |
| 176851899 by Adam Edwards @ 2026-01-05 09:21 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 176754510 by FatGav @ 2026-01-02 17:48 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Just wondering - do you have any idea how NCN61 gets across the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/31640#map=17/51.509457/-0.549799 ?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | FatGav ♦3 | Yes, it uses the green bridleway that is currently there. This was always the route, never the path I removed. That path was there once, not now thought as it's Very overgrown now | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | So I guess you just need to add https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1299073967 to the NCN61 relation? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | (as it's not obvious how to add to a relation in iD)Click on the bit of bridleway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1299073967/history in iD, scroll down to the bottom at the left hand side, in "choose a parent relation" type in 31640 (you can get that number from the relations modi... | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Also a similar thing needs to happen to the Colne Valley Trail https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12772894#map=17/51.509518/-0.549436 so that that doesn't have a gap in it. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | FatGav ♦3 | Thanks for the description of how to do it Andy, I wouldnt have been able to do it without that.It should all be done now.Cheers, | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks - that's fixed it: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=31640 | |
| 176639876 by Adam Edwards @ 2025-12-30 17:34 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,NCN13 used to take the cycleway north from the roundabout here: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2ic8 but now no longer does? Is that deliberate (I know that Sustrans sometimes move things around)?https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10589635#map=17/51.587129/0.435709Best Regards,Andy\... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | Adam Edwards ♦25 | My error. I had to remove the relation to change something (I was adding crossings) and forgot to put it back. It's a very odd bit of map here as WWCT (formerly Sustrans) shows NCN13 as on road yet the map shows a cycleway next to the road, which I cannot find any evidence for, not least as t... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | Adam Edwards ♦25 | I have put the NCN 13 relation back on road as per the Sustrans info. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 172063630 by TheUKHighStreet @ 2025-09-17 12:56 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183987771/history is wheelchair=yes;limited . Do you know which it is? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | TheUKHighStreet ♦25 | I don't - but one of the edits was done by @wheelmap_visitor to say that wheelchair=yes (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96668153) so I think that is likely to be correct. I'll update. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 161470070 by TheUKHighStreet @ 2025-01-17 20:27 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,This is now wheelchair=yes;no . Do you have any idea which should it be? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | TheUKHighStreet ♦25 | No, sorry. The way has always had wheelchair=yes. But the node had wheelchair=no. I think this will need a survey. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | TheUKHighStreet ♦25 | The website does say it has an accessible toilethttps://www.socialpubandkitchen.co.uk/earl-of-camden | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks - based on that I've sent it to "yes" | |
| 165773220 by MacLondon @ 2025-05-03 18:54 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/931633008/history is now wheelchair=yes;no . Do you have any idea which should it be? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | MacLondon ♦240 | Now corrected. A separate node for Superdrug had become merged with the subway exit. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 176753352 by G_Meredith @ 2026-01-02 17:21 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,You wouldn't happen to know where NCN288 goes across the gaps that you can see at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21018#map=16/50.90742/-0.77630 by any chance?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | G_Meredith ♦35 | The permissive path is a very poor quality access link connecting two sections of NCN 288. Not up to cyclepath standards and not part of NCN288. Notes left. Tag amended. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 176667019 by Rafael_Mod @ 2025-12-31 11:14 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I've filled in a gap in Filled in gap in this part of the Lea Valley Walk (relation 14522347) based on the previous alignment https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2ic7 . Do you happen to know if that is OK?Best Regards,Andy |
| 176755318 by Boggedy @ 2026-01-02 18:11 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Just for info, there's an extra "n" in the Enniskillen that is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20040754 - "Ennniskillen" |
| 176765756 by SomeoneElse @ 2026-01-03 00:06 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | (and accidentially a fence near Amotherby) |
| 158941787 by Grove11 @ 2024-11-09 16:50 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,ny idea what the wheelchair access to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1332441985 is? I'm guessing that "noleisure=park" is just a typo.Cheers,Andy |
| 163581779 by jajanja3 @ 2025-03-13 17:59 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293471983/history is now wheelchair=yes;limited - do you happen to know which it is? |
| 31700165 by Rydium @ 2015-06-03 18:46 ~ 11 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,A merge somewhere has made https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/132716669/history "wheelchair=yes;no". I'm guessing it should be one or the other? |
| 176625259 by SomeoneElse2 @ 2025-12-30 12:15 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | b-unicycling ♦288 | I hadn't deleted anything from any boundary relations, I only created waterway relations and added the waterways to those. That should not affect boundary relations at all. I checked all the boundaries, and all were complete loops in JOSM. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | b-unicycling ♦288 | I hadn't deleted anything from any boundary relations, I only created waterway relations and added the waterways to those. That should not affect boundary relations at all. I checked all the boundaries, and all were complete loops in JOSM. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | If you download the relation as it was in Josm between changes you can see one of the problems:[out:xml][timeout:90][date:"2025-12-26T23:00:00Z"];( relation(6270840););(._;>;);out meta;There's a gap corresponding to the section under the N69. I've no idea w... | |
| 176000512 by nimat223322 @ 2025-12-16 11:23 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello nimat223322 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!I'm a bit puzzled by this edit - you've said that this isn't a building any more yet has 3 levels?.Also I don't understand why your comment above is "Ordnance Survey (c) Crown Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. Scale 1... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176713986 | |
| 162161449 by ILOGA SILAS @ 2025-02-05 11:33 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Bonjour,Merci d'avoir ajouté ces informations à OpenStreetMap ! J'ai une petite question concernant « INSO » (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/192688218) : de quel type de bureau s'agit-il ? Normalement, un bureau possède ... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | ILOGA SILAS ♦1 | Bonjour Andy,Il s'agit d'un bureau dans la catégorie office en même temps une NGO. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Merci! | |
| 73214440 by Ravi lamichhane @ 2019-08-10 07:11 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Thanks for adding these to OpenStreetMap! A quick question about "Together for nepal office" https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6698508587 - what sort of office is it? Normally an office would have an "office=<something>" tag and value, where <something> is fr... |
| 138590127 by kharriott @ 2023-07-16 18:15 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Thanks for adding these to OpenStreetMap! A quick question about "The All Island Jamaica Cane Farmers' Association" - if you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11049752768 you can see that it is between two buildings. I'm guessing that it is in the one to the no... |
| 176460247 by b-unicycling @ 2025-12-26 22:48 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello - not sure why https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1461940077/history is a tunnel? Also the new bits of river weren't added to the civil parishes and townlands, resulting in gaps. I'm surprised that the Josm validator didn't flag that up? |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse2 ♦499 | Same applies to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1461940075/history (also not sure why it is a tunnel, also lots of broken relations) | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse2 ♦499 | And also https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1461940073/history | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse2 ♦499 | And also https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1461940076/history | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse2 ♦499 | And also https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1461940070/history | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | b-unicycling ♦288 | I don't know why a new river relation should affect any boundary relations, but I'll look into it. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | b-unicycling ♦288 | I don't know why a new river relation should affect any boundary relations, but I'll look into it. | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | b-unicycling ♦288 | I didn't find a single broken relation. | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | (re them not been broken now) I re-added them this morning - see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176625259 .> I don't know why a new river relation should affect any boundary relations It was creating the "tunnels" under the bridges like https://www.openstreetm... | |
| 176624097 by dsjdn @ 2025-12-30 11:52 ~ 5 months ago Active block | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19237 . Someone has already reverted these changes. |
| 174595185 by pavvv @ 2025-11-13 09:28 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,You are arguing about whether https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/15921137 should be secondary or tertiary. Please explain why you think it should be secondary (or tertiary), and (importantly) why you think that your view has the backing of the community in Poland. Ple... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Witaj,Spierasz się o to, czy https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/15921137 powinien być mapą drugorzędną, czy trzeciorzędną. Wyjaśnij, dlaczego uważasz, że powinien być mapą drugorzędną (lub trzeciorzędną) i (co ważne), dlaczego uważasz, że Twój poglą... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | pavvv ♦598 | There wasn't a forum discussion as I always believed it could be resolved in the comments but unfortunately neither maraf24 nor maro21 want to comply and present answers to my questions about their questionable arguments. I could however bring the discussion to Discord or the OSM forum. | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Yes - please do raise this specific issue in the forum.Also, if you find yourself in a situation like https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/15921137 please NEVER continue the revert war. At best, you'll find yourself blocked for a period of time. You're actually very... | |
| 176602058 by BarryMyles @ 2025-12-29 22:34 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 176153809 by maraf24 @ 2025-12-19 19:15 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,You are arguing about whether https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/15921137 should be secondary or tertiary. Please explain why you think it should be secondary (or tertiary), and (importantly) why you think that your view has the backing of the community in Poland. Ple... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Witaj,Spierasz się o to, czy https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/15921137 powinien być mapą drugorzędną, czy trzeciorzędną. Wyjaśnij, dlaczego uważasz, że powinien być mapą drugorzędną (lub trzeciorzędną) i (co ważne), dlaczego uważasz, że Twój poglą... | |
| 176461629 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-12-26 23:58 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Also a bit of the River Foss up to Towthorpe |
| 176455110 by Pipi Ferry 99 @ 2025-12-26 19:45 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from the Data Working Group here. Have you checked the classification with the reset of the Slovenian OSM community? We've had complaints before about the classification of this road should be, and would therefore suggest to discuss it in the forum or simular. You can see the pa... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Pozdravljeni,Andy iz delovne skupine za podatke. Ste preverili klasifikacijo s ponastavitvijo spletne skupnosti OSM? Prej smo prejeli pritožbe glede klasifikacije te ceste, zato predlagamo, da o tem razpravljamo na forumu ali podobnem forumu. Zgodovino enega dela ceste si lahko ogledate na https:... | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | Pipi Ferry 99 ♦5 | Hello,if there are any concerns I opened a discussion on the Slovenian forum. Kind regardsFerrySpoštovani,na slovenskem forumu sem odprl temo na za vprašanje.Lep pozdravFerryhttps://community.openstreetmap.org/t/klasifikacija-cest/139209/3 | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Great - thanks! | |
| 176266380 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2025-12-22 14:27 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I wonder if you could help with some problems in the area of https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#23/52.34271/-1.70728 ? In OSM that is https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=23/52.34271968/-1.70726271&layers=S , but none of the renderers on the OSM site show enough detail to fix ... |
| 173726757 by vbertola @ 2025-10-24 16:39 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Just wondered - this memorial: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13254558101 isn't the same as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/603833919 by any chance is it?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | vbertola ♦10 | Thanks for spotting this! It looks like the same object, but the position of 603833919 is definitely wrong. Maybe the statue was moved? (603833919 is 16 year old) | |
| 176265977 by Diez Cañones @ 2025-12-22 14:20 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,You've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9520125/history here - was that deliberate?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hola,Has borrado https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9520125/history. ¿Fue intencional?Atentamente,Andy | |
| 175503961 by Conrad_Longmore @ 2025-12-04 16:16 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Just for info, you can check for gaps in relations by a site such as e.g. http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=19918287 and http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=19918287 .Best Regards,Andy |
| 176052464 by sintaung @ 2025-12-17 14:03 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Currently, the NCN1 here is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/254838#map=11/57.6573/-3.2677 , and the EV1 is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2763769#map=12/57.6646/-3.2667 . Should more of the ways that are in NCN1 also be in EV1? Currently many to the south aren't, and to... |
| 175312896 by SCMapper9947 @ 2025-11-30 13:30 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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&... |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | No reply, so I filled in the gap again in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176194664 . | |
| 176044344 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2025-12-17 11:01 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,There's still a bit of a gap in section 2 of the London LOOP: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3308902#map=15/51.40058/0.08141 . Previously it ran on this alighnment: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hBx .Best Regards,Andy |
| 86937588 by SK53 @ 2020-06-21 15:02 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | I think that "location=rii" might be a typo?See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gpC .Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | SK53 ♦869 | Fixed a few so far: road alignments need a lot of tidying in this area. Will do rest in a sensible editor | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks - down to 388 now... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Now down to 333 - thanks! | |
| 140131475 by Pete Owens @ 2023-08-20 12:51 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I'm a bit surprised to see that https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/829316713 became "bicycle=dismount" here. It's tagged as a public bridleway in OSM, which agrees with the local authority https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#19/53.25103/-... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | That's what the sign says - or did 2 years ago when I surveyed it. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 166915285 by ohmanger @ 2025-05-29 11:04 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | kitsee ♦140 | Hello,Could you please refrain from changing name to official_name on transformers and substations. thank you. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | ohmanger ♦44 | Hi, could you please explain why?My understanding is that these are descriptions given by National Grid and rarely (if ever) used in the real world. official_name gives this context. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | kitsee ♦140 | My view is that official_name only makes sense if there is a more common alternative name to take its place in the "name" tag. here there is none and there is no standard convention of using official_name instead of name with transformers and substations.basically all substations and a l... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Some of these things really have verifiable names - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/731794606 is an example (I was surprised by that because it looks like an import error, but isn't) | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | kitsee ♦140 | National Grid Distributions formerly Wester Power Distributions have been very reliable in adding a name and ref plaque to every ground substation. pole transformers can be hit and miss. Admittingly the names can be very out of date since some of these substations could be closing on 100 years o... | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | kitsee ♦140 | To clarify when i say out of date i mean that whatever the substation was named after is long gone. the substations names never seem to get updated once assigned. | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | ohmanger ♦44 | I had a look at a couple of pole transformers on my walk today and couldn't see anything visible on the grey box apart from a ref on the pole.From the wiki:"Do not use name=* if:The feature is unnamed in the real world"If its hit and miss perhaps "ref_name" would... | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | ohmanger ♦44 | Another thing I've noticed is that "Substation" or "Transformer" is prepended to most (all?) of the the nodes you've added - is this from the NG data source?I have verified that some substations don't have this as part of their namee.g. https://osm.org/node/9... | |
| 9 | ~ 5 months ago | kitsee ♦140 | You're misunderstanding what the wiki is saying, its saying if a feature is truly unnamed, that is not known by any name to any person. this is true for many roads, some only have refs others are too minor and don't have any known name or ref at all. in these situations don't use the ... | |
| 10 | ~ 5 months ago | SomeoneElse | Just to be clear, my example above IS named with that name in the real world - I specifically checked because the name rhat had been added looks like a spreadsheet faux pas. However, that's what the sign on it says - it is definitely a "name".If you have surveyed to check that it is... | |
| 11 | ~ 5 months ago | kitsee ♦140 | The "substation", "pole transformer", "primary","grid" and "supergrid" postfixs are added intentionally and is a UK wide standard the uk osm power community knows about it and its contradiction to norms but at the moment nothing has be decided so I a... | |
| 12 | ~ 5 months ago | ohmanger ♦44 | Thanks for the replies!On reflection its mainly the addition of the postfixes that are giving me "this dataset should not be the name tag" vibes, especially with the "Pole Transformers" everywhere.Looking at the "Open Infrastructure Map" project I'm getting... | |
| 175220202 by Archer470 @ 2025-11-28 01:40 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Please see forum discussion https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wikidata-osm-cross-project-vandalism-report/139298 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦268 | Just FYI: OSM puts a major focus on de facto rather than de jure so `place=*` isn't necessarily about places which legally exist (although the legality is one strong point of existence and partially affects the `place` value, see `place=suburb`) but simply any known named location, populated or... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Archer470 ♦2 | Anyone can decide to name something. Legal boundaries and names exist for a reason. That's why the amenities remain, while the boundaries that classified it as a general location were dissolved.The amenities are part of Kagwe Shopping Center.https://kmhfl.health.go.ke/public/facilities/12... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | ManuelB701 ♦268 | This is not a boundary, though! All you did is to scrub a place from existence just because of its legal status (admittingly the STRONGEST but not the ONLY factor) disregarding other ways of determining places (it's even worse on Wikimedia where you decided to scrub the place from history with ... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦9,964 | "Sources: " can you link those sources? | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,677 | Revered questionable removals. See: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wikidata-osm-cross-project-vandalism-report/139298https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175955333 | |
| 7 | ~ 5 months ago | Archer470 ♦2 | No one has provided any proof otherwise. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/harrassment-from-data-working-group-moderators-and-yamatoshiya/139433 | |
| 175608540 by Dokdo @ 2025-12-07 03:54 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Please use better changeset comments than simply "." - use words that describe what you did and explain why.In this case, you seem to be removing a "landuse=military" that you yourself added 3 months ago.It is clearly not very secret, since the bus stop outside has th... |
| 175608396 by Dokdo @ 2025-12-07 03:44 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,I have reverted the changes to the Englist and French names of https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/relation/6646538 in https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/175899550 . |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Dokdo ♦4 | Why? Noo | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Dokdo ♦4 | 그건 정식 명칭이 아니에요.독도는 현재 대한민국이 실효지배하고 있는데, 대한민국 외교부에서는 riancourt rocks와 같은 이름을 사용하지 않아요. 확실히, 영어로는 Dokdo입니다. 이것을 다시 되돌리겠습니다. 오픈스트리트 맵의 ... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | (for international readers, that comment above translates as "That's not the official name. Dokdo is currently under the effective control of the Republic of Korea, but the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn't use names like "Riancourt Rocks." To be clear, the En... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Answering that:> To be clear, the English name is DokdoNo, it really isn't. That's just an anglicisation of the Korean name.> I'll change that backPlease don't do that. I'm trying to sort things out on behalf of the Data Working Group (see https://www.ope... | |
| 175906347 by MacLondon @ 2025-12-14 04:32 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! |
| 174985006 by kapazao_import @ 2025-11-22 11:51 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,This looks very much like an automated edit. Can you point to where it was discussed with the community?Best Regards,Andy(note - this changeset was linked from https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/why-is-it-ok-that-id-performs-undiscussed-semiautomatic-distributed-mass-edits/139011/3... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hola,Esto parece una edición automatizada. ¿Podrías indicar dónde se discutió con la comunidad?Atentamente,Andy(Nota: este conjunto de cambios se enlazó desde https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/why-is-it-ok-that-id-performs-undiscussed-semiautomat... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | kapazao ♦1,010 | Hi, I understand about the automated edits code of conduct, but I do not see the problem here when adding an approved tag from almost one year ago that does not damage any data but completes and prepares data for the scheme, also avoiding errors with validators.Of course this was an automated ed... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | The https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process page contains the text "Also, a vote result is never permission for large-scale re-tagging of existing objects. See automated Edits code of conduct for more about this topic. " (and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Procedimient... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Problems are easy to find - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5371741/history is one. The original relation was tagged as amenity=school but was a type=site relation, you added education=school and someone then removed amenity=school from that and added it to the outer way https://www.openstre... | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | kapazao ♦1,010 | I understand that the rules about automatic editions are made to avoid problems with database and so other users understand these changes. This was made by a user with experience and this was well explained in the changeset and the wiki about education=* so I do not understand this as the only thing... | |
| 145120734 by Nathan_A_RF @ 2023-12-14 17:09 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Re https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/clarifying-default-bicycle-access-on-highway-footway-and-highway-pedestrian/139023/124 , https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/240214608 et al now have "bicycle=dismount; foot=no". I've no idea what is correct but that is an... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Nathan_A_RF ♦224 | I've never been sure either. Cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited across The Thames, but a cycle shuttle service can take cyclists across free of charge on request, hence the 'dismount'. Feel free to change, I didn't put that tag there initially, but have kept consistency on t... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Actually https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163106660 (by a different mapper, ages ago) looks odd too. | |
| 141126341 by Falsernet @ 2023-09-11 17:46 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Re https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/clarifying-default-bicycle-access-on-highway-footway-and-highway-pedestrian/139023/124 , https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/240214608 et al now have "bicycle=dismount; foot=no". I've no idea what is correct but that is an... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Dominic Findlay ♦4 | You are not allowed to cycle in either the tunnels or on the bridge, so I would say it should be bicycle=no for the roads of the crossing.However there is the free pickup service which means you can cross the river. How could cycling navigation app that use osm data work with this? I think tha... | |
| 174912300 by 0625shima @ 2025-11-20 15:45 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | ChangwooRyu ♦19 | It's not about opinions and which side you support. Your edit is against OSM's on-the-ground rule. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Please respect each other's names for things - as you can see from https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/456788679 there have been numerous deletions by several users, including both of you.If you continue to do that we... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | ChangwooRyu ♦19 | Hello,I don't care and don't touch name:ja, like what I did against this edit. But often same vandal edits include deletions of Korean names and additions of name:ja and I should revert the whole edits. Do you think I should spend much energy to identify which is useful or not in vanda... | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | ChangwooRyu ♦19 | OK I realized I deleted name:ja of way 456788679, I'm sorry about that, and restored it. As I said, It's part of what the JOSM reverter did. Todays Dokdo vandal edits are more complicated than past ones years ago, often they are disguised as normal but include problamatic changes. I ca... | |
| 175842255 by Calasanz @ 2025-12-12 11:33 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello Calasanz,Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Thanks for adding a Wikimedia Commons image of the street sign of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529079441 . As you can see from https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/529079441 , the name has been changed back and... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hola Calasanz, soy Andy, del Grupo de Trabajo de Datos de OSM. Gracias por añadir una imagen de Wikimedia Commons de la señal de calle way/529079441. Como pueden ver en https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/529079441, el nombre ha cambiado con el paso de los a&ntil... | |
| 175860687 by SomeoneElse @ 2025-12-12 19:49 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | (in the pouring rain) |
| 175648822 by 김응필 @ 2025-12-08 05:30 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | synthfi ♦21 | next time, can you break up your changeset by continent? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | @synthfi I suspect that it's forgivable in this case as they're using MAPS.ME to update the details of some airports they flew through - likely they weren't in a position to upload until they got home. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | synthfi ♦21 | ahh that makes sense | |
| 175595056 by 市川ゆり子 @ 2025-12-06 17:37 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | mcliquid ♦2,081 | What do you mean with man_made=yes?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12337840399 |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Sylabowy Kot ♦406 | Check the 1st version of this node - it's not his job. You can you a 'yes' value if you cannot define a right one. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | Sylabowy Kot ♦406 | You can use* | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | mcliquid ♦2,081 | What is his job then? Perform automated edits without manual control that have not been agreed with the community and are therefore not permitted? | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | ilias_ ♦445 | I don't mind changing an *obvious* typo to the correct form. In this case manmade to man_made. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Agreed - "manmade" is pretty obviously a typo for "man_made" here.Where problems might occur with changes like this is where both "manmade" and "man_made" were set. Here there were only 5 and only https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8322504104/history had th... | |
| 7 | ~ 6 months ago | 市川ゆり子 ♦5 | Hi, Sorry for late reply... "Perform automated edits without manual control that have not been agreed". Ah~ I didn't do automated edit. I done this manually by JOSM with Overpass API... | |
| 8 | ~ 5 months ago | InsertUser ♦488 | Replacing wrong tags with more wrong tagging is hardly an improvement. Map changes should be individually reviewed unless there has been previous discussion of the edit in line with the automated edits code of conduct. Transmuting nonsense into more nonsense helps no one. https://wiki.openstreet... | |
| 173904057 by Davide Pastelli @ 2025-10-28 22:06 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | Davide Pastelli ♦1 | I am familiar with it, how can I edit the source? | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | 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. | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | Davide Pastelli ♦1 | Alright, understood.I often exploit the Strava Global Heatmap to fix the location of trails I know, or to add some.I get to know those trails through MTB rides or hikes, I do not go there specifically for mapping purposes: that is why I edit features located in different areas in the same change... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | The obvious precaution is "not to use Google Maps as a source". There's more information at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data? . | |
| 168895562 by MacLondon @ 2025-07-14 01:31 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Is there a crossing island at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12980053851 ? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | MacLondon ♦240 | No island. I've corrected the error now (and have also remove tactile_paving from the middle of the road.) | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 175667009 by borovac @ 2025-12-08 13:11 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | You probably haven't got to it yet, but https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403875321/history is also iffy. |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | borovac ♦118 | I will check him... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | borovac ♦118 | It seems to me that everything is fine as it is right now. | |
| 175583957 by RyanLittleKing @ 2025-12-06 12:34 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!I wouldn't add "trafic_calming=table" tp the whole of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1441998851 ; if you look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2gOQ you can see how it is more normally used on ways.Best Regards,AndyPS: Any questions, please d... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | Are you sure about the 1mph speed limit on the slip road from Chadderton Way leading to the Audi dealer? | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | RyanLittleKing ♦1 | I meant to do lanesI'll fix that | |
| 164834965 by philipcullen @ 2025-04-11 21:49 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | I don't know much about UPRNs, but just checking - is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/27212056 OK? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | philipcullen ♦32 | 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 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | tomhukins ♦290 | 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/DisputesFor those of use who... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | TomJeffs ♦34 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | TomJeffs ♦34 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | TomJeffs ♦34 | edit - by highway I mean carriageway | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | Highway Code:"Rule 64You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement."That is clear and unambiguous. There is no exception for disabled cyclists. WRT mobility aids, Disabled folk are permitted to use motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters limited to 4mph (not bicycles) according to pedes... | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | TomJeffs ♦34 | > 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 | ~ 6 months ago | Pete Owens ♦81 | And within a matter of hours TomJeffs has resumed his vandalism of my edits:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175476817 | |
| 8 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19111https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19112 | |
| 160841042 by BarryMyles @ 2024-12-31 16:46 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | BarryMyles ♦16 | lol! Definitely not a forest of palm trees in Scotland. I've fixed this. Thanks for this amusing bit of attribute analysis. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | marc__marc ♦1,509 | Hello,https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19916224the new object for this area is still described as a forest of palm trees :)Regards,Marc | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | BarryMyles ♦16 | Finally got around to fixing the palm forest. Last time I tried I also got distracted by lots of other nearby improvements. and then of course I forgot to change the tag on the forest that I came to fix originally. | |
| 6 | ~ 5 months ago | marc__marc ♦1,509 | Thanks | |
| 169531102 by maurobe57 @ 2025-07-26 22:42 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | Taya_S ♦2,677 | Question, why did you delete the null-island/Soul Buoy in this changeset? |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | ika-chan! ♦403 | Partially undone (buoy restored): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175461804 | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | ika-chan! ♦403 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | ika-chan! ♦403 | Sorry, I meant https://en.osm.town/@pietervdvn/112928272482062515 . | |
| 175407373 by run'n'ride @ 2025-12-02 15:12 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | letsridebikes ♦73 | How do you know it's access=no? You haven't visited any of these sites to survey permissions |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | letsridebikes ♦73 | "Confirming on OS maps" is a serious copyright violation | |
| 4 | ~ 6 months ago | letsridebikes ♦73 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | b-unicycling ♦288 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | (for completeness - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/407814 )Thanks! | |
| 174343697 by youneedfaith @ 2025-11-07 17:00 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | youneedfaith ♦4 | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | OK - done, thanks | |
| 174794510 by Miui Cat @ 2025-11-17 22:25 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | Miui Cat ♦1 | how do I change it | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | adiatmad ♦451 | @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 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | Simon Sustrans ♦13 | Well spotted! I had selected a power cable instead of the adjacent track, now corrected. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse | Thanks! | |
| 173872178 by JargeZ @ 2025-10-28 08:56 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 ~ 7 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | 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 | ~ 6 months ago | SomeoneElse_Revert ♦72,713 | This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 175731398 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes prior to redaction |