| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 119355306 by LivingWithDragons @ 2022-04-05 18:21 | 1 | 2025-05-14 13:44 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9643922962/history has shop = specialist that was added in this editshop=specialist ? But what kind of specialist shop? Is it specializing in fruit and vegetables? Dog collars? Herbs? Shoe repair? Something else? Is any of values from https://wiki.openstre... |
| 2 | 2025-05-14 13:58 | LivingWithDragons | Sorry, I added that shop 3 years ago and I can't remember what it had in the window.I do recall that area of Morecambe being very volatile with shops, it's possible the shop has since changed name and type. As such, it would benefit from resurveying much more than it would benefit from... | |
| 3 | 2025-05-23 20:13 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | the problem is that I have no info needed to fix tagging here, I hoped that you maybe remember it or able to recheckif neither applies: sorry for bothering you! | |
| 159959169 by LivingWithDragons @ 2024-12-05 14:14 | 1 | 2025-05-03 09:12 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12397895161/history - is it a factory? shop? office? |
| 162248634 by LivingWithDragons @ 2025-02-07 14:57 | 1 | 2025-04-23 16:16 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12565743117/history has fixme:type = shop that was added in this editWhat kind of shop is here?See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop for common values - is any of them fitting? |
| 2 | 2025-04-28 10:36 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | maybe amenity=fixmefixme=typefixme:type=volunteeringshould be simply removed here for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12565743105 ? | |
| 3 | 2025-05-01 09:26 | LivingWithDragons | yes, those tags could probably be removed | |
| 161745042 by LivingWithDragons @ 2025-01-25 13:03 | 1 | 2025-04-15 17:10 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12531665458/history has fixme:type = shop that was added in this editWhat kind of shop is here?See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop for common values - is any of them fitting? |
| 159128936 by LivingWithDragons @ 2024-11-14 12:47 | 1 | 2024-11-16 18:12 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12339320208/history has shop = materials that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)shop=materials ? What kind of materials? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop for possible values - though maybe new one is needed) |
| 148662569 by LivingWithDragons @ 2024-03-14 21:31 | 1 | 2024-10-02 21:05 | phodgkin ♦59 | I think Harry's House is best tagged as tourism=chalet (as I originally had it), since it is self-catering. A tourism=guest_house would have an FHRS ID. |
| 152419183 by LivingWithDragons @ 2024-06-08 15:14 | 1 | 2024-06-08 22:58 | Armando Hasanbelliu ♦23 | Please, restrain your self to do edits on smaller areas, not like this. |
| 2 | 2024-06-09 07:39 | LivingWithDragons | Thanks for the message Armando.I had been doing on-the-ground edits in a very small area of West Bromwich. As you can see, not many changes. It seems I had 2 POIs in South Africa from a trip a few months ago and I didn't realise they hadn't been uploaded so they got included when I uploa... | |
| 3 | 2024-06-09 12:21 | Armando Hasanbelliu ♦23 | Oh I'm sorry, I just realized that you used osmand.I thought you were like many who do big areas edits. | |
| 147388053 by LivingWithDragons @ 2024-02-12 23:15 | 1 | 2024-03-11 07:07 | silversurfer83 ♦3,378 | Best wishes to the happy couple.And, as always, happy mapping |
| 119548668 by LivingWithDragons @ 2022-04-10 19:32 | 1 | 2023-03-13 18:44 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Hi there LivingWithDragons. I was wondering if you could say why you changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/841053061 from a footway to a path? I'm interested because I realise you're a very experienced editor. I have tended to follow the advice of SK53 and not used path, but have strug... |
| 2 | 2023-03-13 20:41 | LivingWithDragons | Hi Tom,I agree with SK53 that it's better to stick to footway, and then to use other tags to give specific information.In this case I'm not sure, as usually I'm doing the opposite change or at least trying to match how things have been mapped locally. Pushing my memory, I may ha... | |
| 3 | 2023-03-14 09:37 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Thanks. Yes, I realise it's asking a lot to remember from so long ago. Okay, I may have been a bit over-enthusisastic adding it previously - I'll check it out again next time I'm up there. I don't see much wildlife up on the Chevin and there's not usually any sheep so not su... | |
| 112581119 by LivingWithDragons @ 2021-10-16 14:22 | 1 | 2023-02-06 16:31 | smeòrach ♦32 | parish churches in Scotland are presbyterian, not anglican |
| 66637482 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-01-25 16:55 | 1 | 2023-01-08 15:39 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Hi A couple of years ago I contacted you privately about admin_level=11 tags, but received no reply.Could you please confirm:What data source did you use to add this boundary polygon? This & all your other additions appear very ad-hoc.Which wiki page associates admin_level 11 with ... |
| 2 | 2023-01-09 21:40 | LivingWithDragons | Hi DaveF,I don't know what happened to your message. As per the changeset comment, I was using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData#Boundary-Line as the source for town/parish outlines.Was I using admin_level 11? The wiki suggests that 10 would be appropriate, and ... | |
| 3 | 2023-01-09 22:30 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Hello LivingWithDragons,I'd suggest joining the thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2023-January/029808.html to explain a bit more about these. A relevant overpass query from the first post in that thread for the admin level 11 stuff is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1pXk... | |
| 4 | 2023-01-09 22:31 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Also, would it be possible to sed a bit more light on the project behind "Checking data and relations for towns in Lincolnshire. This changeset forms part of paid work to improve OpenStreetMap data. #UKTownCheck #OrganisedEditing "? Is there anything on the wiki that explains it? | |
| 5 | 2023-01-10 19:18 | SK53 ♦864 | SomeoneElse; I think this was work done for OpenCage. talk-gb thread https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-January/022433.html | |
| 130568386 by LivingWithDragons @ 2022-12-27 18:16 | 1 | 2022-12-27 20:38 | SK53 ♦864 | Easton College should be amenity=college not amenity=university I think. |
| 2 | 2022-12-27 20:50 | LivingWithDragons | I didn't change that, but you might be right so feel free to check online & do an edit. It looked very similar (but bigger) to Houghall College in Durham which provides 6th form level courses. | |
| 3 | 2022-12-27 22:06 | SK53 ♦864 | Yeah, it's a big FE college according to wikipedia (possibly misnamed as it's part of another college), possibly with some degree programmes accredited by an awarding body. I dont think anything without a royal charter makes sense as amenity=university now (obv. back in the day Polys did) | |
| 4 | 2022-12-28 11:19 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Their degree-level courses are provided through UEA. So students may be studying at the college while undertaking a FE qualification. | |
| 5 | 2022-12-28 20:34 | SK53 ♦864 | Yes, I would presume UEA, still doesn't make it a university. That's precisely the arrangement which existed for typical teacher training colleges when they started offering degree courses: they were externally accredited by a university. | |
| 6 | 2023-01-01 20:17 | BCNorwich ♦4,843 | Hi, If as you suggest on the Resolved note #2992283 and your edit in this changeset, Saint Athanasius Coptic Orthodox Church (116611783, v7) is now rebuilt, then the tag "razed:building=church" ought be removed. I can't verify the rebuilding so I'll not amend the tagging.... | |
| 7 | 2023-01-06 17:36 | mueschel ♦6,560 | This node has several strange tags, could you check that?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10290046532 | |
| 8 | 2023-01-06 18:18 | SK53 ♦864 | It's an orienteering post, and these are various markings (not the mapper, but they did ask about these). | |
| 9 | 2023-01-09 21:43 | LivingWithDragons | Ah, I think that post should have sport=orienteering although the validation often complains.Here is a photo of the marker in question: https://twitter.com/gregorymarler/status/1607787545626116099/photo/1 | |
| 119503276 by LivingWithDragons @ 2022-04-09 12:58 | 1 | 2022-04-13 11:15 | DanGlover ♦42 | Hi LivingWithDragons...a query on post box LA1 6. Node 3930655564 has this in the wall on the southern side (RBS?) but your Changeset has created 9653752065 on the northern side at NatWest. Has the box moved, please?Thanks,Dan |
| 2 | 2022-04-19 22:11 | lakedistrict ♦307 | Hi both, Looks like an error as I checked yesterday and its still on the former RBS building, not NatWest. I've deleted the duplicate :) | |
| 109898346 by LivingWithDragons @ 2021-08-18 21:55 | 1 | 2022-02-27 17:47 | phodgkin ♦59 | Hi,I'm intrigued by the defibrillator on Quebec village hall being tagged as disused. I was going past this today and it looked functional. The only thing I can see amiss on the photo is that the location panel is empty. Not sure how we would resolve this! |
| 2 | 2022-02-27 18:00 | LivingWithDragons | There is a window in the defibrillator cabinet. When I was there it was empty. Most likely is that it had been used, and takes time for a replacement to be ordered and put in but I should expect that would be done.So if you've seen it there, then please map this again as a defibrillator! I ... | |
| 3 | 2022-02-28 19:03 | phodgkin ♦59 | Got it! It's clear from my photo that the pad is present. I'll "reactivate". | |
| 111997001 by LivingWithDragons @ 2021-10-02 11:36 | 1 | 2021-11-02 16:32 | danieldegroot2 ♦672 | Hey Gregory,I've added stile=ladder and material=metal (as suggested by the rustiness) in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113293001Also, according to the wiki, "step_count=* should be set to the number of steps on one side. If step count is different on each side, the large... |
| 110940250 by LivingWithDragons @ 2021-09-08 22:12 | 1 | 2021-10-04 18:34 | eteb3 ♦113 | Just a quick note to say that "Shahjal" mosque" is almost certainly "Shah Jalal" mosque. As I recall from the excellent YouTube video the letters were falling off the sign, but it also declared itself as a Bangladeshi outfit: Shah Jalal is the man credited with bringing Isla... |
| 110939864 by LivingWithDragons @ 2021-09-08 21:55 | 1 | 2021-09-21 15:58 | danieldegroot2 ♦672 | Hey Gregory,It seems you forgot to square this building.In the future, please -continue to- square your buildings.Otherwise, your edits look fine.Have fun mapping!Regards,Daniel |
| 2 | 2021-09-22 13:07 | LivingWithDragons | Thanks Daniel, I need to remember that when using iD Editor and teaching people (JOSM is my usual). | |
| 3 | 2021-09-22 21:21 | danieldegroot2 ♦672 | Just fyi; select an object and press "Q", or right click on it and select 'Square' (square icon).You can always look in the editor at the help menu in the right sidebar for shortcuts, or go to the wiki:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Shortcuts | |
| 66776195 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-01-30 16:33 | 1 | 2021-08-08 09:13 | Colin Smale ♦318 | Hi... Should this not have name=Birtley? It seems strange to have a place, a town as well, without a name tag. |
| 99859927 by LivingWithDragons @ 2021-02-24 00:17 | 1 | 2021-03-23 23:01 | LivingWithDragons | This edit was featured in a pair of YouTube videos: https://youtu.be/dFxDTp_1rEo |
| 82193154 by LivingWithDragons @ 2020-03-14 13:13 | 1 | 2021-01-31 18:04 | LivingWithDragons | This changeset was featured in a video series on Mapper Diaries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fj90RFljAk&t=1s |
| 82193694 by LivingWithDragons @ 2020-03-14 13:38 | 1 | 2021-01-31 18:04 | LivingWithDragons | This changeset was featured n a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll-X3IqlHL0 |
| 85722855 by LivingWithDragons @ 2020-05-25 15:14 | 1 | 2021-01-31 18:03 | LivingWithDragons | This changeset was featured in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwTQUPQ0wI |
| 85910187 by LivingWithDragons @ 2020-05-28 21:57 | 1 | 2021-01-31 18:02 | LivingWithDragons | This changeset was featured in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-j5mYgtSjA |
| 94108986 by LivingWithDragons @ 2020-11-14 14:51 | 1 | 2021-01-31 18:01 | LivingWithDragons | This changeset was featured in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IfiLLTH4sk |
| 96078922 by LivingWithDragons @ 2020-12-18 15:23 | 1 | 2021-01-31 18:01 | LivingWithDragons | This changeset was featured in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPH5FQZw4tk |
| 66738811 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-01-29 13:29 | 1 | 2020-09-23 15:02 | Colin Smale ♦318 | Hi, a bit of a discussion has blown up about the town boundaries, specifically Weybridge. ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9274277 ) Can you say what source you used to create that boundary, i.e. what it actually represents? Thanks! |
| 66567103 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-01-23 11:58 | 1 | 2019-01-23 12:52 | will_p ♦148 | Hi,Here you have created relations for unparished areas, for example Beeston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9246079I don't think these areas should be tagged with boundary=administrative, because these aren't really administrative entities, but rather record the absence of... |
| 2 | 2019-01-23 13:30 | LivingWithDragons | I did some research to find appropriate tagging, and look at the OSM data of a few unparished areas.The boundary tag had no more appropriate value documented, and I'm not sure what it would be. I've known boundary=administrative to be used widely, including where it is not such a forma... | |
| 3 | 2019-01-23 23:54 | will_p ♦148 | I'm not aware of boundary=administrative commonly being used for anything other than official administrative boundaries, although I'm only familiar with tagging used in the UK. I know unparished areas are sometimes used for statistics and I recognise that might be an argument for adding th... | |
| 4 | 2019-01-24 11:01 | LivingWithDragons | I'd like to make sure this is tagged right, but I don't want to rush into changing them again.Nottinghamshire seems to be more unique in the largeness of it's unparished areas. I'll see if I come across anything similar in the UK. boundary=place still allows for all the tags ... | |
| 5 | 2019-01-24 23:57 | will_p ♦148 | I agree it's more important to get the tagging right than to change things quickly.My comment regarding boundary=place assumed it would also be tagged with place=town, but I now realise that wasn't what you meant. Using a place boundary with some other place=* value seems sensible to m... | |
| 6 | 2019-01-30 17:29 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | @LivingWithDragons Sigh. Did you actually look at the history of any of the objects that you changed here, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6446737/history , which is "By definition, "East Retford (Unparished)" isn't a civil parish.". It's a "ho... | |
| 7 | 2019-01-31 12:26 | SK53 ♦864 | The Beeston unparished area clearly includes separate places Bramcote, Toton, Attenborough, Chilwell & Beeston itself. These are different places, they may have once been in the same Urban District in the past (But I think it was Beeston & Sandiacre). Making them all Beeston not only fails t... | |
| 8 | 2020-02-23 13:14 | francisbarton ♦5 | I have submitted edits to the towns of Sutton-in-Ashfield and Kirkby-in-Ashfield, for consistency with hyphenation and capitalisation.I wonder if you would agree to carry these formattings over into the unparished area created by this changeset @LivingWithDragons. | |
| 70319918 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-05-16 13:44 | 1 | 2019-10-16 21:24 | Rovastar ♦37 | Just a heads up. I'm going to delete this node fro the "town" of "stoke". Having lived nearby for decades I have never heard of a separate entity and can find no evidence at all that stoke is separate to stoke on trent.Completely unclear where you are getting your inform... |
| 71249254 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-06-14 11:10 | 1 | 2019-06-14 19:42 | Colin Smale ♦318 | please tag electoral wards as boundary=political, political_division=ward and not as boundary=administrative, admin_level=10. The latter tagging is for community councils in Scotland. Electoral wards are not "administrative" in the OSM sense. Thanks! |
| 2 | 2019-06-17 11:13 | LivingWithDragons | Are these wards not equal to English parish wards? Even without the other tags, admin_level is really helpful for understanding the rank of the boundaries.If community councils are more appropriate for administrative divisions, do you know data sources of the areas? To look at an understand (exi... | |
| 3 | 2019-06-17 11:31 | Colin Smale ♦318 | A "Parish Ward" in England is an optional subdivision of a Civil Parish, that returns one or more Parish Councillors. Not all Civil Parishes are "warded" in this way; some are just one big "ward" with the top X candidates being elected. A Civil Parish (which is a land a... | |
| 70723636 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-05-29 08:17 | 1 | 2019-05-29 10:18 | gurglypipe ♦869 | Hi, there’s already a building for the Quaker Meeting House in Grasmere, just south of the node you added. Are there two parts to the meeting house, or is one of them an unnecessary duplicate? |
| 2 | 2019-05-29 10:54 | LivingWithDragons | Oops, I'm not sure how I missed that. I took a photo of a sign on the wall of the Glenthorpe B&B as I walked past.I have removed my node, and added a Map Note so that the exactness can be checked by someone who is in Grasemere. | |
| 3 | 2019-05-29 10:58 | gurglypipe ♦869 | Nice, thanks. | |
| 66774137 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-01-30 15:18 | 1 | 2019-01-30 20:09 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | I think both of these towns have community councils so they could be admin level 10 instead. |
| 66573621 by LivingWithDragons @ 2019-01-23 15:40 | 1 | 2019-01-23 23:40 | DaveF ♦1,562 | HiIs there a reason your adding is_in tags?Please have a read of this threadhttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076592.htmlOSM is geospatially aware. it can be determined what objects are inside polygons.Because is_in is hard coded, if an external boundary is ame... |
| 2 | 2019-01-24 11:08 | LivingWithDragons | is_in tags can help describe/address a place when code might make geospatial mistakes. However that should be less likely to happen with me checking and fixing the relations.It's essentially an old habit that I keep slipping into, especially when there are some is_in tags on the object alre... | |
| 3 | 2019-01-24 15:22 | DaveF ♦1,562 | HiThere's far too much superfluous gumpf in OSM, This tag was only created as polygons were a data form in the early days. Polygons makes is_in tags redundant. The longer the list of tags for an entity the harder it is to find the information required, so increases the likelihood of errors.... | |
| 60658418 by LivingWithDragons @ 2018-07-12 15:58 | 1 | 2018-07-17 18:01 | michalfabik ♦141 | Hi, Gregory, are "New House", "Old Building", "Big Tent" and "Coffee Bar" actual names? |
| 2 | 2018-07-24 08:59 | LivingWithDragons | They were the names used to refer to the buildings on the Emek Beraka site, verbally and in written documents. The "Big Tent" is more an open-sided barn, so this might be a miss-translation from it's Bosnian name. | |
| 46738244 by LivingWithDragons @ 2017-03-10 13:08 | 1 | 2017-03-14 00:53 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi dragon tamer, I notice that you have specified access=staff on way 479717932. Whilst this is perfectly legal, it will not be recognised by any system processing the data because it is not a standard value. I suggest it would be better to put access=private (perhaps with staff entrance or similar ... |
| 2 | 2017-03-14 13:37 | LivingWithDragons | Hmm, I thought access=* (any value) was generally accepted and used, although you seem to be right that it isn't.There was a sign declaring staff only, so access=private losses some information. Looking at the wiki documentation, I'm stuck for a better option so I'll go with that. | |
| 3 | 2017-03-16 11:21 | SK53 ♦864 | I generally go with access=private for staff entrances, car parks etc. I'm not sure that a specific tag for staff adds very much, but you could always look at subtagging. I doubt if anyone has tagged various lawns in Cambridge with access=master; access=fellow and access=scholar :-) | |
| 19572232 by LivingWithDragons @ 2013-12-21 20:13 | 1 | 2017-02-16 13:55 | letihu ♦800 | What ishttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/252953377/history,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/252953378/historyandhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/252953376/history#map=18/52.49031/13.24934&layers=N? |
| 2 | 2017-02-16 15:20 | BeKri ♦713 | Pokemon ?secret part of Area 5x?something to delete ? | |
| 3 | 2017-02-22 23:00 | LivingWithDragons | I think these were wooden post markers with the numbers on. It suggested the woodland area was divided into plots of land. However, I may be wrong and they may relate to the footpaths (or foot routes).Hopefully someone local will see the posts, or similar ones, and make more sense of it. | |
| 34679492 by LivingWithDragons @ 2015-10-16 17:09 | 1 | 2015-11-17 11:37 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | Hi, you have unnecessarily duplicated many roads when creating the bus route 20 in Houghton-le-Spring. Please be more careful next time. I have fixed them now in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35373948 . Thanks. |
| 2 | 2015-11-19 10:53 | LivingWithDragons | Hi Aceman. I know I did a lot of cutting up roads so that the route relation members covered only the right parts. Sorry if I somehow created duplicate objects in the process, thank you for fixing it.If you spot a similar duplicate object by me in the future, please let me know so I can look at ... | |
| 3 | 2015-11-19 18:00 | aceman444 ♦2,564 | Sure, cutting roads is fine, but without making duplicate copies of them. It was only by coincidence (user report) that I found the duplications in Houghton-le-Spring on line 20. So if you did more bus routes in the are, you can check the roads for errors. Thanks. | |
| 29725923 by LivingWithDragons @ 2015-03-25 12:25 | 1 | 2015-03-25 15:19 | Harry Wood ♦100 | We need a twitter <-> changeset discussion link :-) https://twitter.com/gregorymarler/status/580746665524662274 |
| 2 | 2015-03-30 12:57 | LivingWithDragons | "Drat, I've just deleted Bishop Langley." was thankfully just a reference to my local copy of the data which was open in QGIS. |