| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 167817988 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2025-06-19 10:02 | 1 | 2025-07-04 11:33 | phodgkin ♦62 | I wouldn't double tag the Entrust sculpture as `tourism=attraction;artwork`. Objects should have one primary key. Retagging as `tourism=artwork` + `artwork_type=sculpture` |
| 2 | 2025-07-04 12:03 | phodgkin ♦62 | Similarly I would avoid this kind of double tagging `barrier=cattlegrid;gate`. Data consumers won't handle this and will ignore this. It is better to pick one. On a road, the most obvious is `barrier=cattlegrid`. You can add `note=Also 0.7 m gate`. Alternatively you can split the way to show a ... | |
| 167395881 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2025-06-09 12:40 | 1 | 2025-06-10 04:55 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, I've removed these 3 highways as they duplicated existing highways:- Way: 1393532205, Way: 1393532207, Way: 1393532204I've repaired the route relations. Please try not to duplicate highways as it disrupts routing. I'ts also very difficult to correct duplications when routes ar... |
| 2 | 2025-06-11 17:05 | NTTrailsLSE | Hello, thanks for flagging as well as repairing the duplicated ways and relations - this was likely made in error while using a handheld device in challenging conditions the field! Please do continue to feedback if you notice anything else awry, but hopefully a one off!Thanks again! NT GIS Team. | |
| 167220204 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2025-06-05 12:08 | 1 | 2025-06-06 04:53 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, Way: 1392336183 has been removed as it duplicates an existing highway that has several relations. Duplication could disrupt routing please try to check before uploading. |
| 2 | 2025-06-07 05:48 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, the section of highway Way: 'old' West Park Drive (1392336182) has been removed as it duplicates an existing highway that has several relations. Duplication could disrupt routing please try to check before uploading. | |
| 166144141 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2025-05-12 10:16 | 1 | 2025-05-15 10:55 | mueschel ♦6,574 | Hi,please check this node, it got a strange tag:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12830021694#map=19/51.267525/-0.282896 |
| 152843796 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2024-06-18 11:24 | 1 | 2025-02-11 11:22 | Paul Berry ♦124 | We're not allowed to include What3Words data on OpenStreetMap so I have removed it from this relation and also 17731899, 17732380, 17732514.Read more: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What3words |
| 133621303 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-03-13 11:45 | 1 | 2024-10-10 08:53 | Chris Fleming ♦375 | Just noticed that although you realigned the paths; and youer alignment does look better , you missed out some of the features around them, such as the hedges between paths, I will add these to my list to come back to. |
| 150441765 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2024-04-24 11:29 | 1 | 2024-06-23 15:57 | Dave Craig ♦4 | Hi! Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/569708638 really locked? I fixed https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3566536891 which definitely wasn't locked, but I didn't walk through 569708638 so can't be 100% confident. Both are on a main walking route (Cumbria Way) so I wouldn't ex... |
| 2 | 2024-06-25 10:07 | NTTrailsLSE | Hello! Thank you for flagging this! This was edited as part of a walking survey of the site, but it is quite possible that this was accidentally edited or the gate is locked for vehicle use. I have reached out to the local ranger as to confirm and will get back to you as soon as I can! Thanks | |
| 3 | 2024-07-15 09:37 | NTTrailsLSE | Hello! Apologies for the delay, I have just had confirmation from the local Ranger that the gate is not locked so have updated the node. Thanks for flagging. | |
| 150437359 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2024-04-24 10:19 | 1 | 2024-06-20 09:31 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Hiya @Olivia Ragone. There’s been some discussion recently on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152889219 about the change of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/262689051 from a stile to a gate, and the addition of locked=yes to it.Even though it’s tagged as foot=designated, th... |
| 2 | 2024-06-21 16:44 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Another user has come up with a query to show all gates which are tagged as locked=yes on a footpath: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Nb7It seems that this tagging affects a number of the gates on NT routes which have been edited recently. Is this tagging definitely correct?See further discussi... | |
| 3 | 2024-06-25 09:27 | NTTrailsLSE | Hello! Thank you for flagging this! You are correct in that the gate at node 262689051 is a 3m wooden gate locked for vehicle use. This was edited as part of a walking survey of the site, but it is quite possible that an adjacent stile was accidentally removed. I have reached out to the local ranger... | |
| 4 | 2024-06-25 09:40 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Great, thanks. If you could please update people on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152889219 with what you get back from the local ranger, that would be lovely. | |
| 149613520 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2024-04-05 12:46 | 1 | 2024-04-05 13:35 | gurglypipe ♦873 | Lovely idea to add these NT walks as route relations in OSM, thanks! |
| 133445737 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-03-08 15:34 | 1 | 2024-02-27 17:12 | SK53 ♦864 | I suspect some of the tags on public footpaths should be permissive and not yes (it is a right which can be withdrawn by the NT not one granted by law). I'm a bit out-of-the loop with what the current standards are for NT.Years ago when Curly Carver was warden there were some issues about w... |
| 135744406 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-05-05 14:19 | 1 | 2023-09-29 15:26 | mapboy63 ♦23 | Why has way 995869124 been tagged as parking aisle? Seems to be a path or a track. |
| 2 | 2023-10-02 09:57 | NTTrailsLSE | Hi, Thank you for your comment and bringing this to our attention. The error has now been corrected on way 995869124. | |
| 141217083 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-09-13 15:26 | 1 | 2023-09-13 16:42 | Metzor ♦369 | Hi Olivia,In this changeset, you delete the boundary=admin tag in the following relation:https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/5797219Since it is so far away from your main editing region, I wonder if changing the relation was by accident...If not, please keep your editi... |
| 2 | 2023-09-14 08:41 | NTTrailsLSE | Hi Metzor. Thank you for bringing this this to my attention. You correctly identified an accidental edit which I have now corrected. Kind regards, Olivia | |
| 3 | 2023-09-14 11:06 | mcliquid ♦1,862 | Hi,Welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing :-)One general recommendation: changesets should be local.To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)• keep cha... | |
| 134339501 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-03-31 10:53 | 1 | 2023-09-10 13:19 | SK53 ♦864 | Hi,The road heading E from Cwrt y Cadno is a public road but is marked as horses being disallowed. Can you check this as it would be most unusual, but also leaves a dangling bridleway going off it just after the road crosses the Cothi.Thanks,Jerry aka SK53 |
| 2 | 2023-09-10 13:36 | SK53 ♦864 | Additionally way 1158676960 is shown on the Carmarthenshire PRoW map as a public bridleway (you can view this by selecting the relevant overlay layer in the editor). | |
| 3 | 2023-09-11 11:16 | NTTrailsLSE | Hi Jerry, thank you for your feedback and bringing this to my attention. This has now been corrected. Kind regards, Olivia | |
| 137140833 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-06-09 14:44 | 1 | 2023-06-09 15:16 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Hi OliviaAccess tags are unnecessary on public roads, they are just stating the default case.That is why I removed them.Cheers Phil |
| 130039784 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2022-12-13 15:00 | 1 | 2023-06-01 09:34 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Bore daJust wondering why you have tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/396445808 as illegal to ride a bike or a horse?It appears to be just a normal unclassified road.Diolch Phil |
| 2 | 2023-06-01 10:31 | NTTrailsLSE | Hi Phil, Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have reached out to the local ranger to understand whether this was a mistake in the original mapping session, or whether it was marked as 'no' on the basis that access is discouraged for those modes of transport on this way. Will g... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-01 10:42 | trigpoint ♦2,373 | Thank you OliviaPlease remember that no means illegal, not discouraged. However this road is part of NCN 82 so even discouraging bikes would be wrong. As for horses it would be very unusual to discourage them on a public road.Cheers Phil | |
| 4 | 2023-06-09 14:01 | Richard ♦220 | I cycled this road a few years back - I don't recall any signs forbidding motor vehicles or horses, and as Phil says it's part of NCN 82 (Lon Las Cymru alternate braid) so bikes certainly aren't forbidden.If there's signage such as "Unsuitable for motor vehicles" yo... | |
| 5 | 2023-06-09 14:44 | NTTrailsLSE | Hi! Thank you both for the comments and bringing this to our attention. I've just had confirmation from our local NT ranger that this was marked as no bike / horse access by mistake and is in fact an unclassified minor road open to all traffic. This has now been corrected in OSM. NB: Due to... | |
| 134456699 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-04-03 14:00 | 1 | 2023-04-07 16:39 | user_5359 ♦19,410 | Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/212033088. What is the meaning of the tagdesination = permissive_footpath? |
| 2 | 2023-04-11 11:38 | NTTrailsLSE | Hi! Thanks for flagging the spelling error (this should have been designation=permissive_footpath). We will update the tag accordingly. | |
| 132203470 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-02-07 12:22 | 1 | 2023-02-13 09:30 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Hi OliviaThis changeset has some positive additions but a number of changes that don't seem to make sense and there is no explanation in your changeset comment.Why has Kingsway (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223530647) been marked as horse=no?Why has the service road returning from th... |
| 2 | 2023-02-13 12:22 | NTTrailsLSE | Hi,Thanks for your comment. You correctly highlighted a digitising mistake RE: horse access on Kingsway - this has been updated. RE: way 258344829, the NT ranger felt that track was more appropriate but was not confident that the surface type was correct - happy to be corrected if you are conf... | |
| 3 | 2023-02-13 18:32 | TrekClimbing ♦60 | Thanks for your comment and correction. Regarding bike parking, I presume it isn't in the middle of the road? i.e. It should be off to one side I imagine. I don't know what the on-the-ground situation regarding the track surface but usually one of paved or unpaved should cover it? ... | |
| 131880268 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-01-30 12:59 | 1 | 2023-02-10 00:11 | SomeoneElse ♦13,390 | Hello,I've removed a couple of bits around Stackpole from the Wales Coast path super-relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1820890 . As you can see, the Pembrokeshire Coast path https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/77964 is already part of the Wales Coast Path; no need to add it ... |
| 131387598 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-01-17 16:11 | 1 | 2023-01-24 14:16 | DaveF ♦1,566 | HiAre you sure this is a public footpath? It doesn't have a PROW reference.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1132923329Please don't use highway=path. It was created by people who didn't understand the highway hierarchy. Use 'footway' instead. There's no ... |
| 2 | 2023-01-24 15:05 | DaveF ♦1,566 | Hello againWhen amending footways please don't miss out steps & bridges.Have these two PROWs refs been removed from BathNES's database & has the route been officially realigned?https://snipboard.io/8t5ibN.jpgIs there a reason you've split this into an individual wa... | |
| 3 | 2023-01-24 15:44 | DaveF ♦1,566 | Please do not attached ways going under bridges to those bridges. They are at different levels.Do not unnecessarily split ways.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10562962454You've duplicated a stile node.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10562962483/historyDo not split ways unles... | |
| 4 | 2023-01-25 16:34 | DaveF ♦1,566 | Hihttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/549011487Please don't add additional footways directly to stiles etc as it means routers will assume a walker has to cross the stile to walk around the field, which is obviously incorrect. | |
| 131051117 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-01-09 11:37 | 1 | 2023-01-10 10:29 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, Sorry but again warnings above that ought to be looked at.Way: 1128438557 duplicates Way: 1128433780 so I've removed it.Way: 1128433780 also twice crosses a stream, is there possibly a bridge or ford here?Way: 1128438558 duplicates Way: 1128438558 so I've removed it.Reg... |
| 2 | 2023-01-10 10:32 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Duplicated Way: 1128438559 is removed. | |
| 3 | 2023-01-11 07:42 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Another duplicated way, Way: 1128438556 I've removed. Please go back and check your mapping. | |
| 131101258 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-01-10 10:54 | 1 | 2023-01-10 11:06 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, A bicycle does not have a designated use status on a designated public footpath. |
| 131100737 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-01-10 10:40 | 1 | 2023-01-10 11:01 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi,Section 30(1) of the Countryside Act 1968 gives the public the right to ride a bicycle on any bridleway but, in exercising that right, cyclists must give way to pedestrians and persons on horseback. Section 30(4) provides that section 30(1) shall not affect any definition of “bridleway&rd... |
| 131049868 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2023-01-09 11:08 | 1 | 2023-01-10 10:17 | BCNorwich ♦4,856 | Hi, You have several warnings listed above regarding crossing highways and waterways. It would be really good practice to try and resolve these issues.Regarding the public bridleway (Way: 1128433774) foot is designated on a public bridleway, I've amended it.Also Way: 1128438551 duplicates... |
| 123196426 by NTTrailsLSE @ 2022-07-04 14:57 | 1 | 2022-07-04 17:33 | jpennycook ♦327 | Hi!In this changeset, you've tagged Mottisfont Lane, a public highway, with motor_vehicle=designated, foot=yes, bicycle=no (or bicycle=designated on some parts), and horse=no. This road is a designated cycle route - part of the National Cycle Network Route 24. I did not see any restrictio... |