| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 157793432 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-10-12 12:27 | 1 | 2025-06-24 09:57 | eteb3 ♦113 | Hi Robert, Re w181124533, a fragment of bridleway: I see on this cs you changed bicycle=designated to bicycle=yes.Was that deliberate, and if so is that the convention? I have assumed bridleways are designated for cycles, because they have a legal right to use them.Cheers,E |
| 167820453 by Robert Whittaker @ 2025-06-19 10:56 | 1 | 2025-06-19 11:40 | Andrew Chadwick ♦54 | Thanks for the tip.I find notes a little more visible on my phone and other mapping. I've added one as a reminder for myself and others in the area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4812745 |
| 2 | 2025-06-19 18:15 | Robert Whittaker | If you want any more tips nearby, then you might be interested in my tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/#14/51.7528/-1.2853 | |
| 147328574 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-02-11 13:51 | 1 | 2025-05-07 13:05 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372571381/history has shop = veterinary that was added in this editshop=veterinary ? What kind of shop, if any is here? Is it office of a veterinary doctor where you can come with animal for health services? Or is it a place selling veterinary supplies? |
| 2 | 2025-05-07 14:12 | Robert Whittaker | Now fixed, thanks. (It should have been amenity=veterinary.) | |
| 3 | 2025-05-07 18:09 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Thanks for a fix! | |
| 28541307 by Robert Whittaker @ 2015-02-01 10:17 | 1 | 2025-03-28 07:05 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | I have a small question about this ancient edit and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3324857569/historywhat you think nowadays about shop=white_goods and osm.wiki/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dappliance ?Would it be fine to retag this object to shop=appliance or is shop=white_goods describing something ... |
| 2 | 2025-03-28 07:07 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dappliance | |
| 3 | 2025-03-28 09:29 | Robert Whittaker | shop=appliance is fine here. I've updated the node.(Given the wiki description for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dappliance and the British English usage of the term "White Goods", this is likely to be true everywhere in the UK.) | |
| 162165653 by Robert Whittaker @ 2025-02-05 13:29 | 1 | 2025-02-06 15:54 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi Robert,I see that you started to use a properly namespaced version of cqc location ids. Could you also have a look to the 100 existingcqc:location:idcqc:location_idand check if they can be updated as well? |
| 33620473 by Robert Whittaker @ 2015-08-27 13:09 | 1 | 2024-11-19 15:23 | sarukwa ♦9 | Hello! I would be interested in your thoughts about the interesting situation with Wymondham FP19 / FP34.The council definitive statement and map, and the digital map, all show these passing Park Farm (not yet mapped on OSM) and continuing out across a field beyond.However i was stopped at P... |
| 2 | 2024-11-19 15:25 | sarukwa ♦9 | > I am wondering if part of FP19 and FP34 should be 'highway=no'My mistake, only FP34 can be 'highway=no'. | |
| 3 | 2024-11-20 08:26 | Robert Whittaker | Hi sarukwa, I've just done a few edits in the area that might improve things. I've mapped Park Farm from aerial imagery. There's no sign of the path for FP34 from the imagery, and from what you wrote, it seems that there's nothing obvious on the ground either. The highway=path th... | |
| 4 | 2024-11-20 08:40 | Robert Whittaker | Regarding the Definitive Map and Statement, both seem to show FP19 and FP34 as indicated by the GIS data that's shown in the overlay at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/norfolk/south-norfolk/wymondham/ .Legally, even if the Definitive Map and Statement contain mistakes, they're st... | |
| 5 | 2024-11-24 15:27 | sarukwa ♦9 | Hello! Great work. Thanks for the interesting replies.For FP34: I did not see any kind of path near the farm buildings, but that is as far as i got, i was not able to see if there was a worn path across the field beyond (seems unlikely as this seems a rarely used route).Due to being 'de... | |
| 158940651 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-11-09 16:16 | 1 | 2024-11-09 16:47 | IpswichEdits ♦24 | Thanks for doing this, and the other local address fixes. I'd never heard of "addr:parentstreet" before! |
| 156084346 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-09-02 07:50 | 1 | 2024-10-29 11:41 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Is there any point adding explicit pavements that run adjacent to roads already tagged with sidewalk=both? It just seems to add complexity and mess to the essential map modelling with little gain. I've just re-routed the local circular walk to make use of such though. |
| 2 | 2024-10-29 14:09 | Robert Whittaker | In general, I think mapping the pavements (sidewalks) separately is a better representation of reality, and allows for better pedestrian routing and tagging properties of the pavements. Sometimes it has to be done to capture what's on the ground, and then things look inconsistent if you don... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-29 14:14 | Pink Duck ♦150 | I map on the basis of adding pavements when they detour away from the road edge and curb, connecting that back to the road for routing benefit. Just remember yourself to adjust sidewalk tags on the road to separate value or as appropriate when doing such micromapping. Those sidewalks tags already en... | |
| 4 | 2024-10-29 14:31 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Alternatively sidewalk:surface, sidewalk:right:width, etc. style attributes on road itself. | |
| 157632980 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-10-08 15:32 | 1 | 2024-10-08 19:31 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | No, also books |
| 2 | 2024-10-12 15:20 | Robert Whittaker | Do you mean is sells books as well, or that it's called "Oxfam Music and Books" or both?In this mapillary image from August 2023 it seems that the store is branded as "Oxfam Music": https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=17.66803903824338&lat=50.901953070091395&lng=-1.... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-12 15:37 | Nathan_A_RF ♦219 | I didn't think to look at the shop name when visiting today, but they definitely have a sizable selection of both books and music here. | |
| 152244692 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-06-04 13:31 | 1 | 2024-10-07 15:29 | EdLoach ♦171 | Hi Robert. Do you think https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11955885761/history/1 might be the same post box as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1387341180 |
| 2 | 2024-10-07 15:57 | Robert Whittaker | Oh yes, definitely. The location of the node I added is correct. I'm not sure why I didn't notice the existing postbox node when I added it. I've removed the duplicate now. Thanks for spotting that. | |
| 3 | 2024-10-08 09:40 | EdLoach ♦171 | I only noticed because when I walk post postboxes with Mapillary running I tend to take a photo of the royal cypher in case it is missing, and was checking when I got home (it wasn't missing). https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=848234287500341 | |
| 157495519 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-10-05 11:11 | 1 | 2024-10-05 11:44 | All Good Things ♦4 | This is a Changeset that covers a very large area. In future if you could split this into a few smaller regions that'd be appreciated. |
| 2 | 2024-10-05 12:47 | Robert Whittaker | For changes like this, which come from manual inspection of a number of objects from UK-wide analysis, I'm not sure it's desirable of very efficient to split the changeset into any smaller regions.Could I ask why a country-wide changeset like this causes problems for you? | |
| 156393380 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-09-09 12:55 | 1 | 2024-09-09 16:24 | Dave Venables ♦164 | I'll check within the next weekWas certainly on Eagle Park 3 years ago https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105875388 but might have movedI was at the Northedge Business Park in July and mapped everything I could see from the Tiny Tap https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12025713860 an... |
| 2 | 2024-09-09 16:39 | Robert Whittaker | I think the Benchmarx "branches" are often concessions within a Travis Perkins store. I see there's a Travis Perkins mapped on that Business Park, so the Benchmarx well be in there now. | |
| 3 | 2024-09-09 16:46 | Dave Venables ♦164 | Makes sense. Travis Perkins has a very large footprint perhaps the Southern half of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/334253463 so could easily include a Benchmarx. I'll update but will also walk/cycle past to double check | |
| 155640984 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-08-23 09:08 | 1 | 2024-08-29 11:12 | Pink Duck ♦150 | While bitmac is technically a subtype of asphalt, its binder/filler additions make it distinct enough in my view given solvent permeability and non-recyclability compared to road hot-rolled asphalt. Longer lasting kinds are probably fine to do as you did here. |
| 155912895 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-08-29 07:12 | 1 | 2024-08-29 10:24 | Dave Venables ♦164 | No numbers on the gate post but the houses either side are 334 and 338 so assume it must be 336 |
| 152517283 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-06-10 21:43 | 1 | 2024-08-07 10:11 | eteb3 ♦113 | Hi Robert,Just checking: are you sure this path should be tagged as designated for cyclists?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1291147039I've had a brief look and I feel I'd dismount to get to the hotel entrance.But if you know it is, fine.Cheers,eteb3 |
| 2 | 2024-08-07 15:43 | Robert Whittaker | I don't have any strong recollections about that path. Looking at the tagging, it's likely I either continued an existing way and then split it, or copied all the tags from an existing way.If the path only goes to the hotel, it's probably not a designated cycleway. Feel free to ad... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-07 16:01 | eteb3 ♦113 | Ta, have retagged | |
| 148549412 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-03-12 13:11 | 1 | 2024-06-17 20:14 | DorneyLake123 ♦25 | Hi Rob, you might want to check this wayhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1261832842 |
| 2 | 2024-06-17 20:21 | Robert Whittaker | What do you think is wrong with it?(FYI: A map of the Public Rights of Way in Foxearth Parish can be found at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/braintree/foxearth/ .) | |
| 141473938 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-09-19 15:14 | 1 | 2024-05-20 12:39 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11202860417/history has shop = bathroom that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)shop=bathroom ? What kind of shop, if any is here? Is it shop=bathroom_furnishing ? ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=bathroom%20furnishing ) Is... |
| 2 | 2024-05-20 12:40 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Judging by website shop=bathroom_furnishing seems fitting, but I am not sure enough to change remotely | |
| 3 | 2024-05-20 12:49 | Robert Whittaker | Definitely shop=bathroom_furnishing; now fixed thanks! | |
| 141315859 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-09-15 18:47 | 1 | 2024-05-15 22:06 | SomeoneElse2 ♦455 | I'm guessing that the "clothes=men" tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107045740 might not be valid any more? |
| 2 | 2024-05-15 22:18 | Robert Whittaker | No indeed. Now fixed, thanks! | |
| 147542532 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-02-16 17:46 | 1 | 2024-04-16 12:43 | TrickyFoxy ♦962 | 👋 a=yes what did you mean? access=yes?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315366622 |
| 2 | 2024-04-16 16:41 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, I would have meant that. (Presumably the auto-complete I was expecting didn't complete it for some reason.) I've now fixed the way in question. Thanks! | |
| 148913942 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-03-20 13:37 | 1 | 2024-03-20 15:07 | EdLoach ♦171 | You might find this changeset relates https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136603258 |
| 2 | 2024-03-20 15:14 | EdLoach ♦171 | I should add I *think* I went to survey the road end after the earlier changeset was created, and there is no obvious sign from Bentley Road, with the way as you've drawn it passing through a gate and a garage, iirc | |
| 146989221 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-02-02 15:04 | 1 | 2024-02-03 06:51 | DaveF ♦1,562 | What is "not:ref:GB:the_circuit"? |
| 2 | 2024-02-03 07:13 | Robert Whittaker | As per the standard usage of the "not:" prefix, it means the object doesn't have a particular ref that's present in The Circuit (typically despite its proximity to the location in The Circuit of that AED). It's usage confirms that the OSM object isn't a match for that e... | |
| 60785392 by Robert Whittaker @ 2018-07-17 06:51 | 1 | 2024-02-02 12:26 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Puzzling to see highway=cycleway and foot=designated + public_footpath together on FP 34. Surely the primary user of a public footpath are pedestrians? |
| 2 | 2024-02-02 12:30 | Pink Duck ♦150 | The signs from StreetView 2022 suggest shared-use pavement (highway=path used by JOSM for that). | |
| 3 | 2024-02-02 12:40 | Robert Whittaker | I presume we're talking about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50904221 .I just left the previous highway=* tagging when I added the PRoW tags.The highway=* tag is usually more about the physical state of the route than, rather than usage. For shared-use cycle paths I normally go for h... | |
| 4 | 2024-02-02 12:43 | Pink Duck ♦150 | I do subscribe to highway=path because the signs show equal use and the NCN just makes use of that off-road shared bit of pavement for connectivity. Just feels a bit biased to be picking highway=cycleway for a narrow pavement. | |
| 145851106 by Robert Whittaker @ 2024-01-03 18:46 | 1 | 2024-01-05 08:57 | xirido ♦1 | It seems like there might be some confusion or a typo in your request. If you could provide more details or clarify your question, I'd be happy to help. Additionally, if you have any inquiries about AI essay writing services, you can check out Peachy Essay's AI Essay Writer at https://pe... |
| 2 | 2024-01-05 08:58 | xirido ♦1 | It seems like there might be a misunderstanding or a technical issue in your request. Could you please provide more details or clarify your question so I can assist you better? If you have any specific information or context related to "Circuit refs to AEDS" and the provided website, htt... | |
| 3529361 by Robert Whittaker @ 2010-01-03 16:03 | 1 | 2023-12-18 23:00 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | hello!what you meant by wpt_description=G at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/603750611 ? |
| 2 | 2023-12-19 12:47 | Robert Whittaker | The changeset is from a while ago, and was made using Potlatch. The wpt_*, ele, and name keys indicate that I'd used a feature of Potlatch to import waypoints from a GPX track I'd recorded, and then manually adjust them.wpt_description=G is my shorthand for a gate. It looks like I'... | |
| 145031355 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-12-12 10:19 | 1 | 2023-12-12 11:59 | Dave Venables ♦164 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145034889 confirmed that Specsavers audiology is a separate unit from specsavers optometry with Bhavi Beauty inbetween. Fixme removed. |
| 2 | 2023-12-12 12:35 | Robert Whittaker | Many thanks for confirming. That presumably means that https://www.specsavers.co.uk/stores/derby is the store website for both units. | |
| 132043800 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-02-03 14:00 | 1 | 2023-11-09 19:01 | dylw7 ♦7 | this one:-https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1960944640used to be a Londis but it is no longer listed on the Londis site. The Londis branding was removed somewhere between 2012-2015. (GSV) |
| 141593438 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-09-22 08:36 | 1 | 2023-09-22 09:05 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Looks to be a GUID reference, as in globally unique, so probably no need for the :GB suffix. |
| 2 | 2023-09-22 09:17 | Robert Whittaker | AIUI, those UUIDs are actually generated randomly, so I don't think they're technically guaranteed to be unique. But in any case, it's a GB specific data-set, and I think that's the important thing for the OSM key. | |
| 3 | 2023-09-22 09:36 | Pink Duck ♦150 | You leave out addr:country in postal addresses based on geolocation. UUID is universally unique, even beyond Earth. The statistical chance of randomly produced clash of GUID is phenomenally low. However, if it freaks you out that someone searching by GUID might possibly one day find two instances of... | |
| 4 | 2023-09-22 10:00 | Robert Whittaker | The main issue is that "The Circuit" (as a name) might not be globally unique. Including the GB in the OSM key, gives users more a a clue as to what the underlying dataset might be. Yes you could use geolocation - but then what's the point of ever including the country code in a ref k... | |
| 5 | 2023-09-22 10:06 | Pink Duck ♦150 | The computational effort to produce and match bounding polygons for search versus database key text value essentially. Can get a sense of that from XAPI poly: documentation.Fair point about The Circuit identifier being the less than unique thing. | |
| 141563955 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-09-21 14:59 | 1 | 2023-09-21 15:01 | Pink Duck ♦150 | A changeset per edit, really? |
| 2 | 2023-09-21 16:04 | Robert Whittaker | If I don't know that the next edit will need the same changeset comment and source tags, then generally I save straight away. This avoids, either overly general comments, or accidentally attributing the wrong comment/source to an earlier edit. | |
| 141150055 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-09-12 08:08 | 1 | 2023-09-12 13:15 | RaccoonFederation ♦96 | oops |
| 133015983 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-02-25 17:43 | 1 | 2023-08-30 15:32 | CjMalone ♦233 | I assume the extra amenity=bar on the buildings was a mistake? Am I OK to remove them? |
| 2 | 2023-08-30 16:04 | Robert Whittaker | Yes definitely! Not sure what I was doing there. Probably either an auto-complete mistake, or I didn't realise all the buildings were still selected when I was trying to add amenity=bar to one specific object.There's also brewery=various on the same objects. Perhaps it was an accidenta... | |
| 3 | 2023-09-06 07:41 | CjMalone ♦233 | Thanks, fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140881692 | |
| 129386163 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-11-26 00:10 | 1 | 2023-08-22 16:29 | keepright! ler ♦34 | What does oneway=lift_gate mean on way 27547919? |
| 2 | 2023-08-23 10:12 | Robert Whittaker | Looking at aerial imagery, it's presumably an auto-complete error, when I intended to tag it as oneway=yes . Looks like it's already been fixed by someone else though:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27547919 . | |
| 131772037 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-01-27 12:47 | 1 | 2023-05-03 17:15 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Hello!https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98829437/history Do you remember/can/visit/recognize from shop brand what you meant here?Would https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dvariety_store be also a good or better tag? |
| 2 | 2023-05-03 17:40 | Robert Whittaker | You've got the wrong changeset here. shop=discount_store was added to the original node in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126859411 by a different mapper. This changeset was just merging that node into the building polygon.But anyway, I'd say discount_store is probably synonym... | |
| 3 | 2023-05-03 17:43 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Thanks for info and for fix! | |
| 133675884 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-03-14 16:35 | 1 | 2023-04-06 04:41 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | what is highway=link? |
| 2 | 2023-04-06 07:18 | Robert Whittaker | You're presumably talking about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1154315514 .The tagging highway=link was me mis-remembering highway=footway + footway=link. Though possibly highway=no would be better here. Either way though, the segment is needed to be able to map the legal route of the Pu... | |
| 3 | 2023-04-06 18:12 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | I deleted something that isn't there. Why are you insisting on mapping nonexistent features? | |
| 4 | 2023-04-07 08:16 | Robert Whittaker | From a legal point of view the pedestrian route there certainly exists, and it is physically possible for it to be used, despite there not being a dedicated physical path occupying that section.These three aspects are all important, and can/should be recorded in OSM. This can't be done with... | |
| 5 | 2023-04-07 14:23 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | It's physically possible to cross the road anywhere along this stretch of road. What density of crossing ways should there be? Every meter? Every 10 meters? Every 50 meters? | |
| 6 | 2023-04-07 15:02 | Spaghetti Monster🍝 ♦2,068 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground | |
| 7 | 2023-04-07 16:01 | Robert Whittaker | And that's what I've done. I've used highway=no to map the 'ground truth' that there is no physical highway following that part of the line of the public footpath. | |
| 120116954 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-04-24 09:37 | 1 | 2023-03-21 07:39 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Hello!You used shop=collectibles at - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9689392736/historyIs it by any chance expressing the same as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcollector ?Or other of typical shop values listed on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop ? |
| 2 | 2023-03-21 08:39 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, it is the same. Not sure why I didn't find that key value in the wiki at the time. Now fixed, thanks. | |
| 3 | 2023-03-21 15:03 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | And thanks for fixing! | |
| 132529871 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-02-14 10:29 | 1 | 2023-02-14 11:58 | DaveF ♦1,562 | This is /not/ a McColl's. The fact I corrected it just yesterday should have been a clue.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676788755https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3887552,-2.3619239,3a,75y,46.56h,85.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3ialSDFZmgjCsHpgYj0sLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192How many others ar... |
| 2 | 2023-02-14 12:10 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, It's a "Martin's", hence the band=* tag. Rightly or wrongly, NSI has assigned brand:wikidata=Q16997477 to these as well. https://nsi.guide/index.html?t=brands&k=shop&v=newsagent&tt=martin%27s . It's not entirely wrong, since both fascia's are trading na... | |
| 3 | 2023-02-14 12:14 | Robert Whittaker | If you disagree with any of the NSI pre-sets that are used in iD, then you can file issues at https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues . There was some previous discussion on this one at https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/1273 . | |
| 4 | 2023-02-14 12:44 | Robert Whittaker | Wikidata item for Martin's now created: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q116779207 , and pull request submitted to NSI: https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/7775 | |
| 5 | 2023-02-14 20:56 | UKChris ♦42 | The pull request has been accepted, and will be live next week. | |
| 6 | 2023-02-28 21:34 | DaveF ♦1,562 | @RobertI fail to see how you could have misinterpreted what I said.It is *not* a McColls. There is *no* chain. There is *no* branding. There is *no* NSI. There is *no* Wikidata.Please revert.Again, how many other false amendments have you made? | |
| 7 | 2023-02-28 22:25 | Robert Whittaker | I'm really sorry if I've mis-undersrood the issue here. I assumed you were complaining about the addition of the brand:wikidata tag that pointed to the Wikidata entry for McColls. That was added following the NSI preset at the time, based on an exact name match of "Martin's"... | |
| 8 | 2023-03-05 18:59 | DaveF ♦1,562 | "Are you saying it's an independent shop and not part of the Martin's brand?"Yes. Again, how many other false amendments have you made? | |
| 9 | 2023-03-06 12:52 | Robert Whittaker | Ok, thanks. I've removed the brand tags, added a not:brand:wikidata (to prevent iD suggesting an incorrect change again) and added a human-readable note to alert other editors. | |
| 10 | 2023-03-06 13:07 | Robert Whittaker | To answer your question, I'm sure I've made hundreds of errors while editing OSM. But hopefully the small relative number is more the outweighed by the positive contributions.But on these particular changes, I'd be surprised if there were any errors on existing objects that were c... | |
| 11 | 2023-03-06 13:37 | Robert Whittaker | As you can see from https://osm.mathmos.net/chains/Q116779207/ the far bigger issue is that previously mapped Martin's stores have since closed. But now we have the brand tags added, it means that it's straightforward for QA tools to flag up discrepancies for editors to re-survey. Have you... | |
| 132959739 by Robert Whittaker @ 2023-02-24 09:55 | 1 | 2023-02-24 13:38 | UKChris ♦42 | Just curious why you're only adding the 'brand:wikidata' tag and not the 'brand' tag as well?Are these automated edits? |
| 2 | 2023-02-24 13:51 | Robert Whittaker | Is the brand=* needed if brand:wikidata=* is present? Feel free to add it if you want...In terms of how the edit was done, it was an overpass turbo search on the name, results exported to JOSM, followed by a manual sanity check on the objects returned before adding the brand:wikidata tags. | |
| 3 | 2023-02-24 15:39 | UKChris ♦42 | From an OSM perspective the 'brand' might not be required, I couldn't say for sure. The Wiki reads "brand:wikidata=* should be accompanied by the corresponding human-readable brand=* tag." but then follows with "while this is redundant from a data perspective ..".\... | |
| 38455673 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-04-10 16:57 | 1 | 2022-12-02 22:17 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Hello,Any idea if the bit of road outside the church should be part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/91128#map=19/52.45276/0.69071 , or whether it's the northern bit of the relation that's wrong?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2022-12-05 14:59 | Robert Whittaker | I'm not sure I'm afraid, but I'll try to take a look next time I'm out in that direction. From what I recall, the signing on the ground around there is somewhat patchy, so any route is probably a mix of interpolation and guess-work. The route would probably have supposed to follo... | |
| 3 | 2023-01-02 17:14 | Robert Whittaker | I've been to have a look at the ground today. There are no signs on the ground for the Hereward Way round there, so I've routed the OSM relation along the riverside route that's used by the other Long Distance Trails, and most closely follows the PRoWs. | |
| 4 | 2023-01-02 18:53 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Thanks, that makes sense. | |
| 124053842 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-07-25 13:52 | 1 | 2022-07-26 20:50 | ndm ♦889 | Surely, the name should be what's on the signage -- which is HSBC.You can see it's not HSBC UK on Bing streetside. |
| 2 | 2022-07-27 07:47 | Robert Whittaker | Banking is a regulated industry in the UK. Rule changes that came in around 2019 meant that HSBC had to re-brand its UK retail banking operations, and chose to go with "HSBC UK". The re-branding of branch signage started in 2018, and as far as I know was completed several years ago.So ... | |
| 120298934 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-04-28 10:34 | 1 | 2022-05-09 16:18 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Unsure why you believe there's a relation between Cotwold AONB & Land Registry Index PolygonsWhat surety is there that the Land Registry Index Polygons are correctly positioned? |
| 2 | 2022-05-10 12:08 | Robert Whittaker | The AONB boundary clearly goes around the village of Alderton there. The only sensible thing to do would be to follow the boundaries (or on-the-ground boundary features) of the village properties, probably as depicted on OS Mastermap.As far as I know, the digital Land Registry boundaries are als... | |
| 120179426 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-04-25 18:47 | 1 | 2022-04-27 19:10 | DaveF ♦1,562 | Please don't amend the Cotswold AONB boundary. Don't attach an entities to it (residential in this changeset).The AONB is set by Natural England & should not be manipulated to suit what OSM contributors believe to be accurate. |
| 2 | 2022-04-28 11:04 | Robert Whittaker | I've detached the AONB boundary and put it back to the Natural England GeoJSON dataset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120298934 .I'm not sure it's settled that such boundaries shouldn't be attached to other objects when they are indeed coterminous. In general I woul... | |
| 118708720 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-03-20 19:50 | 1 | 2022-04-13 17:00 | confusedbuffalo ♦332 | Hi, I'm not sure what you were using to do the matching here, but something has gone a bit wrong.e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/306487035 which has fhrs:id=1473267 but should link to https://ratings.food.gov.uk/business/en-GB/1472655There's something similar for a lot of obj... |
| 2 | 2022-04-13 18:41 | Robert Whittaker | Hmmm. I was using Greg's FHRS tool, with the automated JOSM links. So I think when I added those FHRS ID's they would have been correct.If you go to https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhodot/?lat=52.13146&lon=0.18814&zoom=9&layer=fhrs and click on the Cambridge City polyg... | |
| 3 | 2022-04-13 20:39 | gregrs ♦1 | Looking at the stats collected by FHODOT, lots of FHRS IDs changed on 7th March as per the FSA announcement, and were gradually corrected until 21st March. Then on 28th March a lot of OSM objects (c. 300) went from being matched with the same postcode to matched with different postcodes.I&#... | |
| 4 | 2022-04-22 15:52 | Robert Whittaker | I've heard back from the FSA, who've been in touch with the City Council. Apparently, the Council made an error in their upload, which caused some of the ID's to be suhffled. They've now uploaded a corrected version to the FSA. Hopefully this means that the FSA data will revert t... | |
| 119991945 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-04-21 09:46 | 1 | 2022-04-21 12:23 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Of note, Royal Mail have gone and changed their wording/definitions since I last checked, and lifted what may have been the mistaken text from before. So I no longer take issue with postcodes going on to polygons such as this, but do check buildings to avoid duplicate addressing. |
| 63454095 by Robert Whittaker @ 2018-10-12 12:20 | 1 | 2022-04-06 19:39 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Just checking - should https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/633304589 be part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/358939 ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119270675 suggests "One gap left where signs missing and route unclear.", which I guess is around https://www.openstreetmap... |
| 2 | 2022-04-07 13:37 | Robert Whittaker | Yes you're right -- thanks for spotting that. I've now removed that way from the relation.The St Edmund Way was previously mapped as following the Stour Valley Path around the edge of Sudbury. But when following it the other day, the signs clearly take it into the town centre, though t... | |
| 117333167 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-02-12 19:17 | 1 | 2022-02-27 10:55 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi,these ways got a strange tag "rjw_update" - could you check that? |
| 2 | 2022-02-27 14:20 | Robert Whittaker | Sorry about that. There were added as an intermediate step in part of JOSM workflow to flag ways that I was going to update. They should have been removed before I hit upload, but it looks like I forgot. Feel free to remove any you come across. I'll sort them if not out when I get a moment. | |
| 3 | 2022-02-27 18:56 | Robert Whittaker | I've now removed the rjw_update tags. | |
| 107735991 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-07-10 07:04 | 1 | 2022-01-16 14:39 | Pink Duck ♦150 | https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29 |
| 2 | 2022-01-16 14:54 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, I'm aware of that. But if the official name is "St Benedicts Street", then then "St" in the OSM tag isn't an abbreviation of the name.(So this is different from e.g. taking "West Main Street" and abbreviating it in OSM to "W Main St") | |
| 3 | 2022-01-16 14:58 | Pink Duck ♦150 | You're welcome to use official_name tag for that, but really the reason for not abbreviating is to avoid losing word expansion meaning and for the render agents to compress as required. There's no guarantee the sign, nor the council, are right on this. St Benedict was a saint after all and... | |
| 4 | 2022-01-16 18:20 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Plus note Nominatim search for "Saint Benedicts Street, Norwich" has since yielded no highway results. | |
| 5 | 2022-01-16 20:32 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Having taken a look at more street names in a similar format, what seems consistent is that on the ground signs often start "St.", sometimes with the dot under the t, sometimes without space, but all contractions for 'Saint'. The council list of streets for these appears to have ... | |
| 6 | 2022-01-16 23:00 | Robert Whittaker | As the street naming authority, the name according to the council is by definition correct. The street name from the council will also be used in addresses by Royal Mail, and we want those to match the street name too.In this case, "Saint Benedicts Street" is arguably incorrect, despit... | |
| 7 | 2022-01-17 09:45 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Try a search for "St Stephens Square, Norwich", which works, as does "Saint Stephens Square, Norwich". I see Nominatim more as a working reference implementation on the guidelines for OSM as defined. Admittedly not a great one, per its lack of stemming for your example.Norfol... | |
| 8 | 2022-01-17 10:35 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Just noticed that the the description fields from your FOI Request include full forms such as "SAINT STEPHENS STREET", but I'll await the response from NCC for now. | |
| 9 | 2022-01-17 21:07 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Easy to miss but there's a road sign "St. Benedicts Street" at the junction corner with "St.Margarets Street", plus:NCC: "POTTERGATE TO SAINT BENEDICTS STREET"Section Ref: 4F199Other oddities:NCC: Saint John MaddermarketSigned: St. John Maddermarket... | |
| 10 | 2022-02-22 11:52 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Since your July 2014 FOI request itself contains 18 cell ref to "Saint Benedict", including "Saint Benedicts Street" (C854), but only 4 cell ref to "St Benedict" - one a foot path, the other a close, then I believe this should be returned to the ground truth.Also in... | |
| 11 | 2022-02-23 08:31 | Robert Whittaker | On the other hand, most of the businesses along there list there address as "St Benedicts Street" or "St Benedict's Street". Given the discrepancies, I think we need to determine the official name from Norwich City Council, and use that.Regarding the list of streets the ... | |
| 12 | 2022-02-23 09:53 | Pink Duck ♦150 | The C854/12 “Saint Benedicts Street” I mentioned was from the Road Name column in your XLS. It also contains 403 "Saint " prefixes vs 188 "St " prefix in the same column (including footpath descriptors). Since this changeset was all about standardising on the List of ... | |
| 73076174 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-08-06 16:45 | 1 | 2022-01-30 05:44 | Lee Carré ♦665 | Is http://www.osm.org/node/6688499885 a duplicate of http://www.osm.org/node/1783490182 or were there really 2 phone boxes there?I ask, because a bunch have been decommissioned recently, so I'm resurveying them. |
| 2 | 2022-01-30 12:16 | Robert Whittaker | I don't know I'm afraid. I would suspect that there was only ever one phonebox there. The changeset was done using Map.me on my phone, so it's entirely possible that I missed the other nearby node that had already been mapped. | |
| 3 | 2022-02-01 20:59 | Lee Carré ♦665 | Thanks. Not to worry. It was quite some time ago.I'll report back, post-survey. | |
| 116679532 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-01-27 19:20 | 1 | 2022-02-01 20:15 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Hello - a quick question about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/466428839 , which is highway=no presumably because there's nothing on the ground here. Should it really be part of the Norfolk Coast Path and the England Coast Path, and (a bit of a philosophical question) should it join https://... |
| 116635310 by Robert Whittaker @ 2022-01-26 19:14 | 1 | 2022-01-28 20:22 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Hello,I wonder if you had any idea - if this bit of NCN13 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9765637#map=17/52.07895/0.72564 runs down https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/120452353 does that mean it doesn't run down the parallel road to the north?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2022-01-29 12:59 | Robert Whittaker | I don't know I'm afraid. I was just passing through and didn't have time to stop. There are definitely signs for NCN 13 along the cycleway just north of Chadburn Road. I looked quickly at the junction of Lackforth and Bull lane and didn't notice and signs either way there. I'... | |
| 3 | 2022-01-29 13:37 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Thanks | |
| 111153807 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-09-13 16:09 | 1 | 2021-09-18 09:07 | Lee Carré ♦665 | I had deliberately left the original PoI node in place:▪︎in order to http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Keep_the_history▪︎because while the ground floor (level=0) is a supermarket, level=-1 is parking and level=1 is houseware retail (though, it's all Waitrose)▪︎I wasn't sure (espec... |
| 110678546 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-09-03 13:12 | 1 | 2021-09-06 18:57 | PeterPan99 ♦43 | I visited here today and it is a "Tesco Express", not a full supermarket. I hope that @Robert Whittaker will not object to my re-tagging it as such. |
| 2 | 2021-09-06 19:02 | PeterPan99 ♦43 | I have failed to re-tag it as "Tesco Express" because the iD editor objects to this and suggests changing it back to "Tesco". I left it as is, pending further research into brands / brand tagging / wikidata etc. | |
| 3 | 2021-09-06 19:36 | Robert Whittaker | Thanks for checking the correct name on site. Looks like you've managed to re-tag it now. iD's "helpful" tag-upgrade suggestions don't always get it right, but if you look at the full set of raw tags you should be able to fix anything you need to. Sometimes there are other f... | |
| 4 | 2021-09-06 21:45 | PeterPan99 ♦43 | Thanks. I think I have got it right now. I had to change the wikidata tag first, then iD stopped objecting. However, changing the name to the full version "Tesco Milton Keynes Old Farm Park Express" caused it to suggest changing back to "Tesco" again (without the "Express... | |
| 107719991 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-07-09 18:02 | 1 | 2021-09-03 14:47 | Pink Duck ♦150 | Aren't addresses as used by Royal Mail assigned to deliverable building units though? So shouldn't that information be on the building itself, perhaps postal_code on the outline if necessary? |
| 2 | 2021-09-05 16:54 | Robert Whittaker | Whatever Royal Mail thinks it's doing, the address is clearly a property of the school as a whole, so I think in OSM it should be included in the tags for the school object.Simple test: for schools with multiple buildings (including those with individual names) you don't typically get ... | |
| 3 | 2021-09-05 18:57 | Pink Duck ♦150 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AddressIt's still rather building-centric in the definition there though. Largely since the posties needs to find the building where the mail is received, while people navigating mainly rely on postcode for locating the street. | |
| 4 | 2021-09-06 11:45 | Pink Duck ♦150 | From taginfo:building + addr:postcode = 47.37%amenity + addr:postcode = 2.24%amenity + building = 0.54% | |
| 58003023 by Robert Whittaker @ 2018-04-11 13:08 | 1 | 2021-09-03 20:46 | eteb3 ♦113 | Hi Robert Just a quick question re https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5545208403 which is amenity=needle_exchangeFrom the location I wondered if this was actually just a needle bin, or whether one can get clean 'works' there too (in exchange for dirty ones).Also I see there are... |
| 2 | 2021-09-05 17:00 | Robert Whittaker | I don't recall the details of the location, or why I went for amenity=needle_exchange . I'm pretty sure it would just have been a sharps bin though for disposal, without any clear needles being available. (Elsewhere I'd tagged such a bin as amenity=waste_basket + waste=sharps, which i... | |
| 3 | 2021-09-05 18:34 | eteb3 ♦113 | Thanks, that's v useful. I may change those 2 nodes you did to the waste_basket option | |
| 110385476 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-08-28 15:51 | 1 | 2021-08-29 09:54 | TheEditor101 ♦21 | Nice work :) |
| 2 | 2021-08-29 17:51 | Robert Whittaker | Thanks!By the way, the remaining Gala Bingo sites in OSM that I couldn't find a Buzz FHRS entry for are listed at https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/gala-bingo/ . | |
| 110153917 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-08-24 07:31 | 1 | 2021-08-24 09:58 | Joe-w ♦25 | This looks like a bad automated edit - the URL before this change was correct. |
| 2 | 2021-08-24 10:25 | Robert Whittaker | Not automated; just a copy and past error. The previous URL is redirecting. I think I must have fat-fingered the ctrl+c to copy the new one, and so the previous clipboard contents was accidentally entered instead. Now fixed though - thanks for spotting it. | |
| 106392168 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-06-15 10:17 | 1 | 2021-08-23 09:35 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Have you surveyed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/156856852/history ?Or have you added shop tags based on just name match (despite it can be an office or closed shop - and this one is very likely closed) |
| 2 | 2021-08-23 11:18 | Robert Whittaker | Oops. This wasn't from a survey. I think I would have been using iD's (often over-zealous) "upgrade tags" feature, to add missing brand tags to several outlets here. I'm usually pretty careful when using it, and check the individual changes it's about to make. I guess I... | |
| 3 | 2021-08-23 13:12 | Mateusz Konieczny ♦7,574 | Great that this is fixed (not sure are you on talk-gb list but it was mentioned there).Well, I can just say that I predicted this :) See https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6517 | |
| 104823243 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-05-17 11:50 | 1 | 2021-08-21 12:04 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Not a question about the OSM data (which I think is correct for both the petrol station shop https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176079436 and the supermarket https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176079436 ) but I notice that the supermarket shows as "missing" at https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/... |
| 2 | 2021-08-21 17:19 | Robert Whittaker | The correct Survey Me Link is https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/#17/53.9914/-1.1049 . Yes, the "Chain Reaction" tool is flagging an "Unexpected Tesco Extra", because it's already matched the store to the Petrol Station shop.Normally the shop=supermarket would be matched in ... | |
| 105721764 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-06-02 12:43 | 1 | 2021-07-05 14:32 | EdLoach ♦171 | I just found this relation when I read in today's paper that the section between Maldon and Salcott is now open ("the 15th section to open" according to the article). Details are few however. "A 26.5 mile stretch running east from Maldon along the north bank of the river Blackwat... |
| 2 | 2021-07-05 14:46 | Robert Whittaker | The bits I added were just from observations of newly installed signage on the ground. However, a quick Google has thrown up https://data.gov.uk/dataset/2cc04258-a5d4-4eea-823d-bf493aa31eef/england-coast-path-route , which might be usable. | |
| 107158642 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-06-29 16:09 | 1 | 2021-06-29 19:51 | jpennycook ♦326 | Hi Robert.In answer to your fixme on the Wheatsheaf Inn - the last time I went past, it was part of "Good Night Inns". I don't think it has been a Premier Inn for a while.Jon |
| 2 | 2021-06-29 21:02 | Robert Whittaker | Thanks -- now updated. | |
| 106957174 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-06-25 11:04 | 1 | 2021-06-25 19:34 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | HBOS isn't a bank so not sure why you added that name? And it would also be better if you added a note to the map instead of a fixme tag, as they are more likely to be noticed, surveyed, and fixed. |
| 2 | 2021-06-26 08:11 | Robert Whittaker | I was under the impression that some of the banks were called HBOS for a time (although actually I'm not sure that's correct now). Whether they were or not, on the basis of progressive enhancement, exposing some sort of name with the best available information from the current tagging is a... | |
| 3 | 2021-06-29 11:36 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | I thought HBOS was just the company name of the merged banks. But anyway I've fixed those two, going by Mapillary/Geograph and confirmed on the BOS website.Think there's a difference between "normal" missing data and the need for someone to check something specific in this ca... | |
| 106391912 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-06-15 10:13 | 1 | 2021-06-15 12:30 | Lee Carré ♦665 | 👍Vespucci didn't know this info for auto-populating the fields (unless it comes from presets anyway, which should be updated), and while out surveying I seldom have the spare resources to run a browser along with everything else. |
| 105359774 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-05-26 13:00 | 1 | 2021-05-26 13:57 | Jez Nicholson ♦70 | How strange. The Name Suggestion Index appears to point it at Q98456772 https://nsi.guide/index.html?t=brands&k=shop&v=convenience&tt=Tesco&cc=gb but the shortcut fills in Q487494 |
| 2 | 2021-05-26 16:41 | Robert Whittaker | The NSI was fixed some time ago, but I they were changing the format they publish the output in and it took them some time to release a new version. I don't know if iD can accept their new format or not yet, but either way there's been an annoying hold-up between the two projects. | |
| 102659993 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-04-09 17:09 | 1 | 2021-04-09 19:18 | SK53 ♦864 | Hi Robert,This edit has alerted me to something I wish I'd been at aware of before in that NSI splits the other Tesco formats/concepts as distinct brands. This was certainly not my original intent when I created the UK retail chains page. The idea was to use a single brand across all proper... |
| 100573720 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-03-07 13:10 | 1 | 2021-03-07 14:04 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | It is a One Stop as mapped, why are you even asking that question?Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2021-03-07 14:39 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | Ah, got it. Had missed deleting the tags although this has been One Stop since at least 2011.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/621354623/historyCheers Phil | |
| 99174047 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-02-12 11:58 | 1 | 2021-02-13 00:24 | confusedbuffalo ♦332 | A couple in here that I was responsible for, thanks for spotting and fixing them |
| 98450158 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-01-31 14:11 | 1 | 2021-02-01 21:05 | doublah ♦19 | Keep in mind until name-suggestion-index is updated in iD, iD will suggestion to revert these. Might wanna watch these shops for a while. |
| 96187998 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-12-21 10:40 | 1 | 2021-01-22 13:10 | VictorIE ♦903 | Hi,I had no idea we were engaged in an edit war about Tesco Express. :) |
| 2 | 2021-01-22 14:07 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | I have 'hopefully' fixed the name suggestion index to point at the correct brand:wikidata in future | |
| 3 | 2021-01-22 18:04 | VictorIE ♦903 | \\o/ Yay! | |
| 96686212 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-12-30 18:48 | 1 | 2020-12-30 21:27 | chris_huggins ♦7 | Hi Robert. No need for the fixme tag here. I set the access tags based on the signage on the ground which is a ‘no vehicles’ sign (one of these https://images.app.goo.gl/RyQM3SAz3SRtZLqE9) at the southern end at the point of the bollards. |
| 2 | 2021-01-16 12:45 | Robert Whittaker | Many thanks. | |
| 97259880 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-01-10 18:43 | 1 | 2021-01-11 09:27 | Mex ♦72 | Do we use the tag kindergarten in the UK? I found the wiki on this not very clear. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97259880 |
| 2 | 2021-01-11 11:51 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, and there are about 3.6k uses of amenity=kindergarten in the UK: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/amenity=kindergartenhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=kindergarten seems clear enough, that it's the tag to use for what we'd typically call pre-school or nurse... | |
| 3 | 2021-01-11 14:03 | Mex ♦72 | Thanks for the info. --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97259880 | |
| 96857385 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-01-03 17:33 | 1 | 2021-01-03 19:32 | chris_huggins ♦7 | Hi Robert, you seem to have shifted this footpath several metres north of where the official Norfolk County Council signage on the ground indicates it starts and ends (there's a fingerpost at the western end where it joins the A1066 and a post with official waymarkers / arrows on at the eastern... |
| 2 | 2021-01-03 19:57 | Robert Whittaker | Generally, I've found NCC's GIS data to be pretty good, and more reliable than their signage on the ground. So ordinarily I'd trust the GIS data to be a better representation of the official route on the Definitive Map.But I had a closer look here, and the previous alignment match... | |
| 96748119 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-12-31 18:39 | 1 | 2021-01-01 23:20 | ndm ♦889 | At least one item seems incorrect; amenity=nightclub + disused=cinema is now disused:amenity=nightclubProbably should be reverted and checked again? |
| 2 | 2021-01-01 23:22 | ndm ♦889 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/568831882 | |
| 3 | 2021-01-02 10:33 | Robert Whittaker | I'm not sure how that happened, as I was looking at each one individually before fixing the tagging. I guess I must have missed the the two amenities being different there. I've checked all the other items in this changeset and they were fine. I've fixed that particular way. Thanks fo... | |
| 96776708 by Robert Whittaker @ 2021-01-01 15:35 | 1 | 2021-01-01 15:55 | ndm ♦889 | This has removed carefully mapped objects will revert in due course |
| 2 | 2021-01-01 15:57 | Robert Whittaker | Oops, sorry if it did. It wasn't supposed to. This only objects that should have gone (I hope) were some of the pedestrian avenues, that I merged into one. There wasn't any different tagging on them, so there didn't seem any need to keep them as separate objects. | |
| 3 | 2021-01-01 15:59 | Robert Whittaker | Certainly, there shouldn't be more than one object on the site tagged with shop=mall, since there is only one mall (shopping centre) there in reality. That was the main thing I was trying to address. Sorry if it's messed anything else up. | |
| 4 | 2021-01-01 16:19 | ndm ♦889 | Second look it’s probably fixable - some customer inaccessible rooms have been merged to the walkable area - the multiple malls are probably from me splitting the original single shop - may be better described using indoor mapping, I’ll have a look later. | |
| 95433195 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-12-07 16:15 | 1 | 2020-12-08 20:11 | ndm ♦889 | The building you edited is part of "The Mall" it is not "The Mall" -- have corrected it. |
| 91703030 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-09-29 11:11 | 1 | 2020-11-23 13:35 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Remember you can check the Mapillary / OpenStreetCam layers in iD - there's imagery which shows it as an Aldi :)https://openstreetcam.org/details/1577789/74/track-infoAlso, please create a note rather than adding a fixme that fewer people will see that tag. |
| 93559622 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-11-04 19:26 | 1 | 2020-11-05 18:30 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Hello! Please check the way http://www.osm.org/way/231218649: I assumed a copy&paste error for the tag buildingweb=yes. |
| 2 | 2020-11-05 18:34 | Robert Whittaker | Probably a mis-click in iD meant my typing went in the wrong place. Anway, it's now fixed, thanks. | |
| 91577556 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-09-27 10:25 | 1 | 2020-09-27 19:41 | lakedistrict ♦307 | Hi, Thanks for your recent edits. Based on the store addresses, I think the URL you've added actually belongs to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319475977? This new branch inside The Range doesn't appear to be listed (yet) on Iceland's store finder. |
| 2 | 2020-09-27 21:50 | Robert Whittaker | Thanks -- I think you're right. I've move the website as you suggested. (It seems that the outlets they have inside "The Range" stores don't appear as branches on the Iceland website. | |
| 3 | 2020-09-27 22:15 | lakedistrict ♦307 | Thanks. | |
| 90760167 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-09-11 13:00 | 1 | 2020-09-14 08:10 | jambamkin ♦81 | Hi Robert, This might need to be changed in the name-suggestion-index (https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/) in order to stick. I just caught myself almost overriding it carelessly. |
| 2 | 2020-09-14 08:37 | Robert Whittaker | Indeed. See https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/4087 . | |
| 90824915 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-09-13 16:38 | 1 | 2020-09-13 16:38 | WakefieldMapper ♦28 | Do you know there is a OSM Preset for all these |
| 90793885 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-09-12 13:07 | 1 | 2020-09-12 20:21 | GinaroZ ♦1,280 | Did you mean to remove the brand:wikipedia? |
| 2 | 2020-09-12 21:01 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, because there doesn't seem to be a specific Wikipedia page for the "Currys PC World" brand. I could only find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currys and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_World_(retailer) , neither of which would be correct. | |
| 87701157 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-07-08 09:40 | 1 | 2020-08-29 12:32 | Pink Duck ♦150 | I note you used highway_ref key instead of highway_authority_ref, has opinion on that changed? |
| 2 | 2020-08-29 13:23 | Robert Whittaker | I could be mistaken, but my recollection is that there was never any consensus on what tag to use for unsigned highway ref's other than not using ref=*.For me highway_ref=* is preferable to highway_authority_ref=*, since the former is consistent with prow_ref=* (we don't use surveying_... | |
| 29717649 by Robert Whittaker @ 2015-03-25 00:20 | 1 | 2020-07-03 15:41 | loveshack ♦31 | I'd forgotten to worry about assorted changes I've seen sourced from the University of Manchester campus map, with a view to at least trying to get permission to use that, if not Estates data direct. However, I notice you've used it in this changeset, and doubtless would be careful. I... |
| 2 | 2020-07-03 15:49 | Robert Whittaker | It was over 5 years ago, but I doubt I would have used a campus map for any of the changes there. The comment suggests I used Bing aerial imagery, and some local knowledge. (Around that time I stayed in Manchester for a week while attending a conference in the Alan Turing Building.) | |
| 86275590 by Robert Whittaker @ 2020-06-06 10:46 | 1 | 2020-06-07 11:45 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Hello! I changed you "hoop=1"="bench" to "hoops"="1" and "amenity"="bench". Could we spend a second node? |
| 2 | 2020-06-07 22:39 | Robert Whittaker | Thanks for spotting that, but you guessed incorrectly. It's just a basketball hoop, without a bench. "hoops=1"="bench" should just have been "hoops"="1". (The result of typing "=" rather than "tab" in JOSM no doubt.) I've now remo... | |
| 28794747 by Robert Whittaker @ 2015-02-12 12:55 | 1 | 2019-10-22 18:50 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Hello! Could we delete the way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327755843/history (only note and I think the decision was made in the four years) |
| 2 | 2019-10-23 07:46 | Robert Whittaker | I don't see why you would want to delete it, unless the route of East Winch RB 14 has been confirmed and mapped. The note there is still as valid as when it was written. | |
| 3 | 2019-10-23 07:47 | Robert Whittaker | However, we do now have better Open Data about the routes of Public Rights of Way in Norfolk ( https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/norfolk/kings-lynn-west-norfolk/east-winch/ ), and part of the route has been mapped. So we can certainly make some improvements here... | |
| 4 | 2019-10-23 08:01 | Robert Whittaker | ... Here we go: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76086538 | |
| 5 | 2019-10-23 10:22 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Sorry, but i miss something like highway=bicycle (?). | |
| 6 | 2019-10-23 10:51 | Robert Whittaker | I'm not sure what you mean here. Is there a highway=bicycle way that you don't think should exist, or you want to use highway=bicycle on an existing way that is not tagged like that at the moment? Could you give a link to the way in question? | |
| 7 | 2019-10-23 11:05 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | We talk about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327755843 . From my understanding I am missing a highway = bicycle, but would also accept other values. | |
| 8 | 2019-10-23 16:32 | Robert Whittaker | highway=bicycle is not a recognised tag, but perhaps you are thinking of highway=cycleway instead? (See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway .)However for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327755843 it really needs a ground survey to determine what highway=* value is appropriate, depe... | |
| 72112990 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-07-10 22:21 | 1 | 2019-08-26 13:25 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi Robert, in this changeset you have way 703228515 with designation=public_footpath, foot=no and bicycle=yes, which looks like an error. Can you please review?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2019-08-26 20:11 | Robert Whittaker | I'm afraid I can't shed any light on it, as the tags were already there before this. In my changeset I created https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703228515 from a spit of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/105885027 . Looking at the history of that way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10588... | |
| 3 | 2019-08-26 22:15 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Thanks Robert, I have updated the foot access to designated, based on the assumption that it is incorrect and also changed a couple of highways to be driveways based on Bing and what seems logical. Feel free to change if you think I have it wrong. | |
| 71285663 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-06-15 18:03 | 1 | 2019-06-16 15:25 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Hello! Please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26524104/history. What is the meaning of "add:v" = "Brundall" ? |
| 2 | 2019-06-16 16:13 | freebeer ♦1,598 | moin georg,the first entry below gives the answer i guessed as correct based on failed autocompletion:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684438454and it even bears the same village name :-) | |
| 3 | 2019-06-17 08:25 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, it looks like a typo in "addr" meant that the auto-completion I was expecting didn't happen. Now corrected to addr:village=Brundall. | |
| 70576288 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-05-24 07:44 | 1 | 2019-05-24 15:33 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Hello! What is the meaning of the prefix HE_? If this a notation of a operator name, please use the key operator. |
| 2 | 2019-05-24 16:03 | Robert Whittaker | "HE" is "Historic England", the government body that maintains the list of listed buildings. I believe that HE_ref is documented in the Wiki for the listing number. By extrapolation, I've used HE_name=* for the name Historic England uses in the listing, where I thought it wo... | |
| 3 | 2019-05-24 16:27 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | Yes you're right, I unfortunately missed the Wiki article. But I don't think a separate key makes sense, because the list uses the term location instead of name for one, and to other scarce 4,500 objects there is another solution. | |
| 4 | 2019-05-25 06:47 | Robert Whittaker | So what tagging would you suggest instead then? | |
| 5 | 2019-05-25 14:20 | user_5359 ♦19,340 | That's not my specialty. But read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage#England. If you also need the object name from the list, you could use e.g. old_name | |
| 69411299 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-04-20 20:44 | 1 | 2019-05-07 07:57 | kreuzschnabel ♦800 | Hi Robert, would you please have a look at https://osm.org/way/388540277 – it does not connect to Church Street which looks rather unlikely to me. Don’t know if you caused that but you’re the last editor of this way :) |
| 2 | 2019-05-07 08:19 | kreuzschnabel ♦800 | I just saw on streetview imagery that seems to be true. Added noexit=yes. Sorry for the inconvenience :) | |
| 3 | 2019-05-07 08:30 | Robert Whittaker | Yes I did alter it, and the road geometry there is correct. The spur off Swine Hill does not connect to Church Street. It obviously used to, but has been closed off. You can just about see the grass on Bing imagery. | |
| 4 | 2019-05-07 08:30 | Robert Whittaker | I've added a bit more detail from a photo I took. | |
| 5 | 2019-05-07 08:41 | kreuzschnabel ♦800 | We got a bit into each other’s way now but I think we’ve sorted it out now. Thanks :) | |
| 69506880 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-04-23 23:06 | 1 | 2019-04-24 10:25 | Dave Venables ♦164 | I've added a note as this node with a Newark postcode (single character typo fixed by this changeset) was also duplicating an existing way https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1755115 and it may be better to merge but I don't know which address to use as sources conflict (see note) |
| 2 | 2019-05-04 10:20 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | This alreeady exists - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165124356 . | |
| 66627299 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-01-25 10:35 | 1 | 2019-05-03 08:15 | BCNorwich ♦4,844 | Hi, Way: 666057001 is untagged, perhaps inadvertently added?Regards Bernard |
| 2 | 2019-05-03 09:00 | Robert Whittaker | No idea where that came from or what it was supposed to be. Everything was version #1 so now deleted. Thanks for spotting this. | |
| 66394050 by Robert Whittaker @ 2019-01-17 12:24 | 1 | 2019-01-20 14:48 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi,what's the meaning of "nsg_ref"? It's not used in any other place. Maybe a typo?Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2019-01-20 18:14 | Robert Whittaker | NSG stands for the "National Street Gazetteer". See https://www.geoplace.co.uk/streets/managing/what-is-the-nsg . The NSG reference number seems to be the only ID on non-road highways in Suffolk County Council's List of Streets (https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-adop... | |
| 3 | 2019-01-20 18:22 | mueschel ♦6,560 | It's common to use keys of the form "ref:XYZ", so "ref:nsg" in your case.Apart from this I don't know anything better at the moment. | |
| 4 | 2019-01-21 08:51 | Robert Whittaker | For reference numbers on highways it's also very common to use XYZ_ref. For example, we have prow_ref, unsigned_ref, highway_ref and highway_authority_ref, ncn_ref, rcn_ref all in extensive use. | |
| 58879220 by Robert Whittaker @ 2018-05-11 13:40 | 1 | 2018-07-16 12:15 | Stephen Paulger ♦1 | On the councils "List of streets" ( https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/roads-and-pathways/highway-records/ ) the two sections you've queried are listed as unclassified roads.There is some confusion in the council dataset however as the public righ... |
| 2 | 2018-07-16 19:59 | Robert Whittaker | It would be unusual, but quite possible that a section of route is both an unclassified highway and a BOAT. Unfortunately, I don't think we have permission (yet) from Cambs CC to use information from their "List of Streets" in OSM. | |
| 57530038 by Robert Whittaker @ 2018-03-26 10:30 | 1 | 2018-04-10 15:25 | lakedistrict ♦307 | Regarding the fixme, it might be worth asking the original mapper - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51378456 |
| 57034975 by Robert Whittaker @ 2018-03-09 15:10 | 1 | 2018-03-12 01:40 | DaveF ♦1,562 | HiWas this block amendment discussed anywhere? |
| 2 | 2018-03-12 08:27 | Robert Whittaker | No -- do you think it should have been?I'm not sure exactly what your concerns are, but (a) the use of the DfE data for UK Schools is well-established, and (b) I wouldn't regard the changeset as a mechanical edit as each change was examined individually before being included in the cha... | |
| 3 | 2018-03-12 08:54 | DaveF ♦1,562 | My concern is the name change. Similar to road & shop names, the one on the ground should be used. In databases they're often manipulated to suit the needs of the compiler.A heads-up on Talk-GB would have been nice. | |
| 4 | 2018-03-13 13:20 | DaveF ♦1,562 | https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-March/021236.html | |
| 55573374 by Robert Whittaker @ 2018-01-19 10:01 | 1 | 2018-01-19 14:23 | Colin Smale ♦318 | Hi Robert, did you possibly mean for way#554221884 to be an embankment? You tagged it as an admin boundary and that looks really odd.https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/554221884#map=19/52.42569/0.76400 |
| 2 | 2018-01-19 15:42 | Robert Whittaker | Well spotted! Yes, it should have been thanks. I've now fixed it. (It was a 'repeat tags' error using potlatch. I noticed it on another way, and thought I only had one to fix. I must have missed that one.) | |
| 48159001 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-04-26 10:50 | 1 | 2017-12-20 12:12 | SK53 ♦864 | Unfortunately this deleted the node for Wallasey entirely. |
| 2 | 2017-12-20 18:55 | Robert Whittaker | Oops -- I didn't notice that. To be fair though the place=town, name=Wallasey had already been destroyed by the previous edit. Anyway, I've now restored the node in question to its prior state: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26703036 Thanks for spotting this. | |
| 3 | 2017-12-20 19:21 | SK53 ♦864 | Just looking through towns & spotting a fair number of anomalies. For instance I'm not sure that (local to this one) New Brighton is anything more than a suburb of Wallasey (although I've left it as is before now). | |
| 48666498 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-05-14 07:37 | 1 | 2017-05-18 13:43 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | HI, way 493393332 added in this change has highway=no, which doesn't seem to be correct. Can you take a look at it?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2017-05-18 16:54 | Robert Whittaker | I'm not sure exactly what you think is wrong here? Given the previously mapped path follows the desire line across the field, with some evidence of use from Bing imagery, I assume that the path on the ground indeed follows that route.But this route does not follow the legal definitive line ... | |
| 3 | 2017-07-17 19:57 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi Robert, there is no other way in the UK with tag highway=no, so I suggest just removing the highway tag. I have moved the Icknield Way route from this way to the actually walked path, as walking routes need to be able to be walked.Personally I'm not sure that there is much value in reco... | |
| 4 | 2017-09-19 13:26 | Robert Whittaker | There are actually quite a few other ways tagged with highway=no in the UK: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/highway=noIf the route available on the ground is significantly different (to the point where it would be clearly incorrect to gat either one as the other), then I think both shou... | |
| 5 | 2017-10-29 17:54 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | HI Robert, apologies for the late reply - I was away on holiday. There do seem to be more ways with this tag than I had realised (most of them with your name against them). Not sure why only this one was flagged up in my map build process. I have noticed that highway=no is in the deprecated features... | |
| 6 | 2017-10-30 08:42 | Robert Whittaker | Yes Rjw62 on the wiki is me. I wouldn't take the wiki as gospel -- it's as much to document current practice as it is to set out guidelines. In particular, there appears to be little information there about how or why highway=no is marked as deprecated. From what is on the wiki, I would su... | |
| 52592020 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-10-03 10:40 | 1 | 2017-10-06 09:54 | Harald Hartmann ♦827 | Hello Robert Whittaker. Athttp://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1739261983you have tagged`not:sddr:postcode`?!PS: do you test the pubs, too? ;-p |
| 2 | 2017-10-06 10:05 | Robert Whittaker | Typo fixed thanks. That one is local to me, but I haven't tested it yet. | |
| 52620509 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-10-04 10:09 | 1 | 2017-10-05 08:21 | Harald Hartmann ♦827 | Hello Robert Whittaker. Athttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/302567075you have tagged `afhrs:id` instead of`fhrs:id`, right? |
| 2 | 2017-10-05 10:54 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, just a typo. Now fixed, thanks. | |
| 52029393 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-09-14 08:19 | 1 | 2017-09-15 07:25 | Harald Hartmann ♦827 | Hello Robert Whittaker. I think you have missed a `r` at `post_box:apertues`, right? #newkey #typo |
| 2 | 2017-09-15 07:52 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, good spot, thanks. Now fixed. | |
| 51674720 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-09-02 17:01 | 1 | 2017-09-04 17:22 | Bexhill-OSM ♦93 | Heh, just noticed your fixme tag on one of my post-box edits. Yes - 7pm certainly isn't right, thanks for the heads up :) |
| 47917962 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-04-18 20:20 | 1 | 2017-06-11 14:44 | Pink Duck ♦150 | I put the addr:* and phone tags on the building, since it is the building that is addressable for postal delivery and location, plus the land line installation was there too. Extracting these to the outer polygon is perhaps useful for school search result, but is less precise. Plus you'll note ... |
| 2 | 2017-06-13 21:54 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, I found a few schools without the address details on the amenity object and rightly or wrongly 'corrected' them. Then I realised someone had systmatically been adding the address details to the main building instead, so I didn't do any more. It would be good to work out which is ... | |
| 47473790 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-04-05 12:00 | 1 | 2017-04-06 10:12 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi Robert, I don't think that Path #1 is correct to use for the name field as this does not seem to be a proper noun. I suggest this should go in either loc_ref (local reference) or prow_ref (if it is a public right of way reference - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref). Can yo... |
| 2 | 2017-04-06 10:56 | Robert Whittaker | The ways in question are https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116516240 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/484923139 . One appears to have been created by me, but was only the result of splitting the way to alter the highway=* tag on one part. The name="Path #1" was originally added by map... | |
| 3 | 2017-04-06 12:01 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Thanks for the reply. If I'd noticed you'd just split the way I wouldn't have contacted you. Looking at them and a few nearby paths, I think they are just numbers generated by the mapper. There are no indications of any authority for the numbers, so I have moved them to the note field... | |
| 47267476 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-03-29 17:32 | 1 | 2017-03-30 10:35 | DaveF ♦1,562 | To check, does this block have 2 postcodes? Website lists only one. |
| 2 | 2017-03-30 11:40 | Robert Whittaker | It would appear so from the Code-Point Open data: http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?layers=BFFTFF&zoom=18&lat=51.3806&lon=-2.36582 . | |
| 3 | 2017-03-30 11:57 | DaveF ♦1,562 | How old is that data? This is a new build that encompasses the previous sites of a business & retirement flats. A google of BA1 1BJ returns no businesses. Isn't code point just a bit of a guess at the centroid of a rough polygon?The site of Green Park House was tagged with a postcode from... | |
| 4 | 2017-03-30 12:09 | Robert Whittaker | It's the latest release of Code-Point from around the middle of January 2017. The points are a delivery point of an active postcode unit, chosen to lie closest to the geographic centroid of all delivery points for that unit.It's quite possible that postcodes for a very new development ... | |
| 46576540 by Robert Whittaker @ 2017-03-04 16:37 | 1 | 2017-03-08 17:55 | Yorvik Prestigitator ♦151 | I thought the label says B4 424 |
| 2 | 2017-03-08 18:08 | Robert Whittaker | I didn't check (carefully) or alter the number -- just corrected the collection times and added the box design. It's quite possible the plate now says B4, so if you think that's what it should be, then feel free to fix it. | |
| 23165488 by Robert Whittaker @ 2014-06-25 20:38 | 1 | 2017-01-22 00:39 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Hi, Just spotted that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112005641 here has "soruce:prow_ref" on it here.Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2017-01-24 11:04 | Robert Whittaker | Oops -- now fixed, thanks. | |
| 31281939 by Robert Whittaker @ 2015-05-19 12:14 | 1 | 2016-12-07 17:26 | SK53 ♦864 | Seems there's a typo on postal_distribution_box in this changeset. I presume it refers to one of these: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FGbTbtxfIJfPmfOvAdiE5w |
| 2 | 2016-12-08 14:32 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, that's right. I'm not sure if it's the best way to tag it. One of the nodes was previously incorrectly tagged as an amenity=post_box , which obviously isn't right, so I needed something to use instead.Both nodes http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3528302841 and http://www... | |
| 3 | 2016-12-08 15:54 | SK53 ♦864 | Yeah was looking for examples 'cos Alex Kemp has been doing exactly that (tagging as post boxes) & I thought such an approach needed to nipped in the bud smartish. Having an alternative tag certainly helps & I think this is perfectly self-explanatory. | |
| 43919239 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-11-24 12:01 | 1 | 2016-11-24 13:26 | srbrook ♦22 | I got the previous postcode edit wrong, but I think this may be wrong too. The FHRS database, this website http://www.roseandcrownsevernstoke.com/ and other sources indicate it should be WR8 9JQ. |
| 2 | 2016-11-24 13:35 | Robert Whittaker | Interesting. Going by FHRS and Code-Point Open, that does look more likely, so I've changed it. | |
| 43845582 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-11-21 12:29 | 1 | 2016-11-21 23:11 | sdoerr ♦71 | Oops! Copy-paste error on my part. Thanks for fixing. |
| 43219629 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-10-27 15:14 | 1 | 2016-11-01 14:10 | tomhukins ♦216 | Although you've fixed the postcode, the street name looks wrong and I wonder if the house number might be too. What do you think? |
| 2 | 2016-11-01 20:20 | Robert Whittaker | Good catch. I've found the correct address using the FHRS data, so http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/939888254 should look better now. | |
| 42269263 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-09-19 12:20 | 1 | 2016-09-25 16:45 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi,http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2334120318"not:adr:postcode" - is this a spelling mistake? And "ele = 1st floor" is better tagged as level=1Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2016-09-25 16:51 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, you're right on both counts (though the ele one wasn't down to me). I've now updated the node.FYI: the not:addr:postcode is there because that's what's in the FHRS database, but it's wrong. It's a discontinued postcode, so presumably it's an old one f... | |
| 22931307 by Robert Whittaker @ 2014-06-14 19:06 | 1 | 2016-09-08 22:26 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | There are two "Haddiscoe Taverns" - http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/294628457 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2916315079 . One has a website suggesting it's the Crown Inn. |
| 2 | 2016-09-09 13:56 | Robert Whittaker | Yes, that looks like an error. I've found my GPS track, and it's got a waypoint there with "crown inn left. h tavern right" as I was driving towards Fritton. I've now fixed http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/294628457/history -- thanks. | |
| 41483963 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-08-16 08:02 | 1 | 2016-08-18 18:23 | Robowolfer ♦4 | Whats means "source;prow_ref=norfolk_county_council_prow_gis_data" ? |
| 2 | 2016-08-18 22:15 | Robert Whittaker | It's a typo for source:prow=*.But it it looks like the single instance at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/437413485 has already been corrected by another mapper. | |
| 40659668 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-07-11 16:59 | 1 | 2016-07-11 20:49 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Thanks for that - I went looking for this today to correct the tagging but taginfo couldn't find it! |
| 39253728 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-05-11 21:47 | 1 | 2016-07-03 16:32 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Hi,I'm guessing that "barrier=ge" on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4179568368 should be something else. Any thoughts what?Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2016-07-07 09:15 | Robert Whittaker | I've check my GPS track POIs, and it's what I guessed -- it should have been barrier=gate. OSM now corrected. | |
| 3 | 2016-07-07 09:58 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | Thanks. | |
| 36979270 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-02-03 15:11 | 1 | 2016-03-02 20:56 | SpillerC ♦5 | Robert. Isn't this a kindergarten? Edubase says Age Range: 2 - 5 for #107188 Abbey Green Nursery School |
| 2 | 2016-03-02 21:50 | Robert Whittaker | I think you're right -- though it wasn't me who originally tagged http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/395344444 as amenity=school. Feel free to change it. | |
| 37214431 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-02-14 23:15 | 1 | 2016-02-17 21:30 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi Robert,a "horse_drawn_vehicle" - isn't that what the wiki defines as "carriage"?http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:accessCheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2016-02-19 09:08 | Robert Whittaker | THe wiki 'definition' is not very precise, as it just says "horse(s) + carriage". It's not clear to me that all horse-drawn vehicles would be called "carriages", and the UK Traffic sign at the western end of this track is specifically "Horse Drawn Vehicles Pro... | |
| 3 | 2016-02-19 13:17 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Hi,in other places I saw carriage=no used for exactly this traffic sign (which exists in other countries as well). You could add some conditional restriction, because I doubt the "horse_drawn_vehicle" will be understood anytime soon by software, e.g. vehicle:conditional = no @ ("d... | |
| 4 | 2016-02-19 13:33 | Robert Whittaker | Better would be to agree whether or not carriage is the same as horse_drawn_vehicle as far as access tags in OSM are concerned.If so, then the tags can be changed to carriage=*.If not, then we'd need to introduce and document horse_drawn_vehicle=* as a separate value. It would then be d... | |
| 5 | 2016-02-19 15:01 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | FWIW I went with horse_drawn on http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=65663472 - taginfo in the UK suggests that it has the edge: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=horse_drawn. Usage of "carriage" in the UK seems to be in error on e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196598... | |
| 6 | 2016-02-19 18:01 | trigpoint ♦2,371 | Horse drawn is also used on the Meir Tunnels and matches signage. | |
| 7 | 2016-02-19 19:13 | mueschel ♦6,560 | Is the UK law really this specific? Horses are forbidden, but a mule would be ok?Apart from that: I think that many people are not aware that there might be a difference - as access tags are quite important, I guess there should be a proposal explaining differences and finally add this to the li... | |
| 36762600 by Robert Whittaker @ 2016-01-23 17:50 | 1 | 2016-01-23 21:14 | sdoerr ♦71 | Oops! Thanks. |
| 9176234 by Robert Whittaker @ 2011-08-31 13:14 | 1 | 2016-01-17 16:50 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi Robert, is "Bramble Hill Stopboards and Gap" really the name of a road or should this be a description, or is it not a highway at all?Cheers,Mike |
| 2 | 2016-01-17 18:45 | Robert Whittaker | It's certainly a highway of some sort, as it allows access to the dunes/beach. I don't recall the surface, but it may be tarmaced. The name was taken from an official EA sign, so it is the official name of something -- perhaps of the gap in the dunes and the constructs in and around it, ra... | |
| 3 | 2016-01-17 18:46 | Robert Whittaker | The way in question is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/128403160 | |
| 4 | 2016-01-18 10:54 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | I found a picture at http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1016257 - it looks to me like the stopboards part at least should be in the description field as I assume this describes the wooden planks. | |
| 36026641 by Robert Whittaker @ 2015-12-18 12:21 | 1 | 2015-12-18 23:32 | SomeoneElse ♦13,357 | The previous mapping of "designation=right_of_way" here was based on the signage (as of June 2014) - I should have added a specific source for it! I suspect that it'll only get "fixed" when DCC decides to properly classify what sort of right of way it really is, and signs a... |
| 697372 by Robert Whittaker @ 2009-02-28 17:23 | 1 | 2015-10-22 09:10 | GerdP ♦2,751 | please review:node 282932477what is a highway=pinch_point ? |
| 2 | 2015-10-22 11:05 | Robert Whittaker | It's what's now described in the wiki as traffic_calming=choker. I've updated the tagging accordingly. | |
| 3 | 2015-10-22 11:29 | GerdP ♦2,751 | thanks, did not find that | |
| 33316899 by Robert Whittaker @ 2015-08-13 16:21 | 1 | 2015-08-13 17:59 | DaveLakowski ♦3 | by highway=no are you saying there should be a path but isn't? I'm curious because I'm not really sure how to map rights of way with no physical presence.Cheers |
| 30223688 by Robert Whittaker @ 2015-04-14 22:03 | 1 | 2015-04-15 21:09 | paulbiv ♦12 | Thanks Robert |