| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 179281637 by LordGarySugar @ 2026-03-03 03:19 ~ 3 days ago | 1 | ~ 2 days ago | DaveF ♦1,612 | Shouldn't delete name, fhrs or website. Prefix with disabled:*. They're useful for validation checks & future amendments.. |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | LordGarySugar | Could do, but it's not really standard practice to keep lifecycle prefixed website and fhrs tags. They're still in the history if anyone needed to check the website for a closed pub. I find people often forget to delete old tags when pois rebrand, so it keeps them clean for whatever appear... | |
| 177634506 by LordGarySugar @ 2026-01-24 05:34 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | LordGarySugar | Also retagged highway=give_way entering roundabouts to traffic_sign=give_way |
| 177323188 by LordGarySugar @ 2026-01-17 05:11 ~ 1 month ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | LordGarySugar | Correction: the real overpass query is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2iSW - includes parent ways for loading into josm |
| 172712431 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-10-01 15:35 ~ 5 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | skorasaurus ♦220 | thanks for adding ;) |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | saikofish ♦2 | I was just listening to the podcast explaining how they built the neighborhood and cul-de-sac in real life, and was wondering if anyone actually added it to the map :)I don't suppose we're really allowed to call it Cielo Rosado Court though ... are we? | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | LordGarySugar | I don't think it would be wrong to add that name, as there is no other existing name for this street. For example, the Eastenders set has all the street names and pois mapped (not using standard tags). Presumably the landuse=residential needs to be changed to some kind of commercial/film studio... | |
| 175416212 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-12-02 19:04 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | honapak ♦6 | I don't understand this changeset. Strand Building, for example, is the name of a building. It doesn't appear in the address. Same for many of the others that've been changed. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | LordGarySugar | In what way would 'Strand Building' not appear in its address? It has no other housename or housenumber tagged, so how would that work? Is it because they are university buildings that something different should happen with these? | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | honapak ♦6 | It isn't because these are university buildings, I chose this one as an example. Just because a building has a name doesn't mean that name is included in the address, or that the building is addressable at all. You chose not to change other buildings in this area name tags to addr:housenam... | |
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | ceirios ♦96 | I think this is fine, if not better than what was there before. In a place like London it certainly helps to see the house number.And if these building names arent in the address, then how is correspondence sent and received? It's got to be in there somewhere! | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | honapak ♦6 | "it certainly helps to see the house number" even when it's fantasy? The university has a main postal address, not one for every building. Some of these buildings aren't publicly accessible. Based on your logic, why wouldn't we also change every building name tag on the map ... | |
| 168543413 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-07-06 00:42 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | mueschel ♦6,941 | Hi,what does "annually:tourism" mean? This prefix is not used in any other place.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/606196511/history/3 |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | LordGarySugar | I made it up. I did see that a couple days ago and think 'what a crazy tag, who put that there' and then I realised... I think the rationale was that the campsite is only open for visitors on a select few days of the year (for example the Grand Prix weekend.) So, it didn't make sense ... | |
| 175421036 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-12-02 21:40 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | 349179440 ♦10 | thanks for fixing it! |
| 175048086 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-11-24 01:47 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | ceirios ♦96 | thank you for refining the fire pit refining refine the fire pit refinery |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | LordGarySugar | 炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑炼化火坑... | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | finn-hound ♦22 | THANK YE FOR YOUR FIRE PIT REFINING CONTRIBUTION TO O' GREAT OIL REFINERY | |
| 174486904 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-11-10 23:15 ~ 3 months ago | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | LordGarySugar | I got rate limited if anything is broken (it definitely is) the final changeset is getting uploaded in 30 minutes |
| 173905621 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-10-28 23:31 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | 0235 ♦41 | 10/10 5* A++++++ 💯 Great work! |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | LordGarySugar | Thank you, I dedicate my work to my loyal fans, all (0) 235 of them | |
| 173161359 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-10-12 02:39 ~ 4 months ago | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | Sharko_J ♦98 | labubu |
| 166546525 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-05-21 01:03 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | ramthelinefeed ♦75 | Hmm, well what is the correct way to tag a disused railway station building, then? For instance your changeset has left the former Ardglass Railway Station building ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/983112658 ) just as a building incongruously tagged 'name=Ardglass', which makes no sen... |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | LordGarySugar | Hi, I was trying to deduplicate the tags that were also on the nearby Ardglass station node (11009056412), but maybe it could do with building=train_station + abandoned=yes. (and perhaps a clearer name). A lot of this historical info in my opinion is better placed in OHM, for example the branch line... | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | ramthelinefeed ♦75 | Well fair enough if there was another nearby node with similar tagging. I agree the razed/abandoned/disused tagging is a bit woolly at times - although often with those old rural rail lines in NI, although the track itself is gone, it is still crystal clear on the ground that it's an abandoned... | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | LordGarySugar | I have a very strong opinion that a clear corridor or embankment isn't grounds for a closed railway to be present in OSM, but that's a discussion for another time :)I went ahead and added building=train_station and abandoned=yes to the former train station building, so that should be m... | |
| 171377414 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-09-02 19:34 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | Lumikeiju ♦124 | Thank you for working to standardize the tagging of these! Happy mapping! |
| 170637903 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-08-18 19:46 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | buy_osmand ♦126 | ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ, as-salāmu ʿalaykum,i've intention to mark this changeset as good on OsmCha but was notified," resource not found"https://osmcha.org/changesets/170637903so, here it goes," 😳👍Good, |
| 168329674 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-06-30 22:48 ~ 8 months ago | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | VictorIE ♦1,034 | Thank you. Do you know what went wrong? |
| 2 | ~ 7 months ago | LordGarySugar | There was one validator error around the Silent Valley Reservoir (the South Dam), and another at Spelga Dam. I think it was with ways set as inner members despite sharing nodes with the outer way or the MP. (Hence why I've drawn the outer way around the Reservoir now) | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | VictorIE ♦1,034 | Thank you. | |
| 167114620 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-06-03 03:02 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | watmildon ♦293 | Nice. |
| 165175001 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-04-20 00:58 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | mstrbrid ♦54 | Hi, could you please explain why the inner residential areas aren't members of the multipolygon? I was just about to add a new area in Montpelier to the relation, but now I'm unsure whether I should or not! |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | LordGarySugar | Hi, the huge residential multipolygon is not a standard way of representing a city's landuse areas, hence why I have been gradually splitting pieces off with the ambition of eliminating it altogether. The reason that the more central areas are not part of the MP (anymore) is because they are on... | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | LordGarySugar | Tldr: No, don't do it! | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | mstrbrid ♦54 | OK, grand. Is there a logic you're following to decide what size parcels to split the MP into? | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | LordGarySugar | Here I'm not splitting it as much as I usually would, just for the sake of time. My primary goal is to eliminate all 'inner' areas, so I will divide the landuse along a road that helps me to reach the area (eg a school) so that I can exclude it while only using simple polygons. I will... | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | mstrbrid ♦54 | Brill, thanks for the Bushey example. I see there, though, you've also separated neighbouring areas along residential roads, not just primary-tertiary. Eg:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1299092272,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1299092269, & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12721... | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | LordGarySugar | There's nothing to read, it's just my own personal mapping style! I make use of osmuk cadastral parcels to trace landuse according to property boundaries. Basically anything that's part of a private residence inc. garden and driveway goes inside residential landuse and everything else... | |
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | LordGarySugar | I've found this thread which might be relevant to you, I've only skimmed over it https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/exclude-residential-roads-from-residential-area/108924 | |
| 166360821 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-05-16 17:03 ~ 9 months ago | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | tomhukins ♦261 | Thank you for fixing this.I recently noticed obsolete railway information disrupting Nominatim results and fixed some of these near where I live. I really appreciate your diligent work doing the same across the country. |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | LordGarySugar | My pleasure. My personal reason was because of all the nonexistent stations and junctions being shown on the new OpenRailwayMap vector version, which no longer shows abandoned and razed railways. I explained my rationale and methodology here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposal-removal-of... | |
| 165216497 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-04-21 01:07 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | 0235 ♦41 | ❤ Thank you |
| 165050702 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-04-17 01:25 ~ 10 months ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | DaveF ♦1,612 | HiAs you've created MP ways without inners these need to be removed from the Bristol residential relation & converted to standard closed polygon ways. |
| 163593367 by LordGarySugar @ 2025-03-14 00:56 ~ 11 months ago | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | rskedgell ♦1,767 | Thanks. I'm reasonably sure that the crossings here have been upgraded from pelican to toucan since the last Bing street side image capture. I've added a note for confirmation, which will hopefully be resolved by one of the local mappers before my next visit.https://www.openstreetmap.o... |
| 158477550 by LordGarySugar @ 2024-10-28 23:31 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | 0235 ♦41 | Absolute Hero, Thank-you! That giant Multi-Polygon has been a Thorn in my side for a long time, I appreciate the work it must have taken to split it up, and all the other work! I never knew about the Bicycle Advanced Stop Lines, I will try to keep an Eye out for those to map, If there are any left :... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | LordGarySugar | I'm glad I could help! I only intended to fix a couple of wonky roads, but I got distracted! I basically ended up downloading the whole of the town to sort all the landuse out. If it helps, I actually deleted the multipolygon and retagged the outer way as residential, which made it a lot more m... | |
| 149756745 by LordGarySugar @ 2024-04-09 00:59 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | rskedgell ♦1,767 | Should the grass running track at Bushey Meads School be tagged with access=private? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | LordGarySugar | It is private, but is not tagged as such as I have never seen access tagging on leisure=track before | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | rskedgell ♦1,767 | It's a lot less common than on leisure=pitch or leisure=swimming_pool, but I think it's likely to be useful for data consumers searching for sport facilities. | |
| 151967377 by LordGarySugar @ 2024-05-29 00:44 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Henny Vianelde ♦76 | Great Job, Keep Mapping --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151967377 |
| 149870461 by LordGarySugar @ 2024-04-11 15:38 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | LordGarySugar | *aligning roads |
| 149592858 by LordGarySugar @ 2024-04-05 00:39 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | LordGarySugar | Reverted 149588696 excluding intended additions of gardens and geometry changes |
| 146499282 by LordGarySugar @ 2024-01-21 03:23 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | LordGarySugar | +source is also survey and local knowledge |
| 146465089 by LordGarySugar @ 2024-01-20 04:22 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | Pan ♦62 | Nice! I am happy my images are useful. :-) |
| 108343838 by LordGarySugar @ 2021-07-21 02:21 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | BCNorwich ♦5,109 | Hi, There is usually no need for negative tags like intermittent=no or oneway=no as in their absence they are implied.I've made minor amendments to the water areas.Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | ~ 4 years ago | LordGarySugar | Ok, thank you for your advice, I only learned how to map in OSM yesterday so any feedback is valuable. |