Copyright © Pascal Neis | Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors | ResultMaps | Latest OSM discussions | Autoreload 5:00 min | Page limited to max. 500 changesets
18 changesets created by Roshmaps have been discussed with 10 replies of this contributor
Participated changeset discussions | More details | Discussions (Include blocked users) | Discussions without answer | Discussions without own answer | RSS feed
Changeset # Tmstmp UTC Contributor Comment
134453819
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-04-03 12:48		12025-06-14 12:04Mateusz Konieczny
♦7,659		 Can you take look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4805483 ?
134488982
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-04-04 10:25		12025-06-06 12:30Mateusz Konieczny
♦7,659		 Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4792561#map=15/53.05539/-1.78496 ?
130108975
by Roshmaps
@ 2022-12-15 10:44		12023-10-23 16:41VictorIE
♦911		 Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/520573405

This way literally has
lit=*
surface=*

:)
22024-08-05 18:52VictorIE
♦911		 Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/708820702

I'm wondering about access=no

Is it not accessible to anyone, not even staff?
130901921
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-01-05 11:20		12024-08-05 18:51VictorIE
♦911		 Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1127470501

I'm wondering about access=no

Is it not accessible to anyone, not even staff?
132495474
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-02-13 15:17		12023-09-23 13:34EdLoach
♦171		 Any idea about this bridleway, which seems to be inaccessible to horses, only having footpaths either end? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1144835177
141162255
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-09-12 12:52		12023-09-12 13:43gurglypipe
♦873		 Heya, just checking: should https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24564297 be motor_vehicle=private instead of motor_vehicle=no? If not, it probably shouldn’t be tagged as a driveway. Ta :)
22023-09-12 13:48Roshmaps Well spotted gurgly ;)
32023-09-12 13:57gurglypipe
♦873		 haha :D

Thanks again for all your ongoing changes and attention to detail :)
42023-09-12 14:06Roshmaps And thanks to you for helping us in the process :)
137911028
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-06-29 09:45		12023-06-30 13:14DaveF
♦1,564		 Hi
Could you clarify why you split this way?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/159240705
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1185674006
22023-06-30 13:26Roshmaps Hi Dave,

I originally split the way so that I could align the path and forgot to merge it back together. Will do that now - thanks for reminding me!

R
131998262
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-02-02 11:10		12023-02-20 16:01gurglypipe
♦873		 Hi, just getting around to checking over this changeset, and I have a couple of quick questions:

1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1137223728 is tagged as designation=public_footpath but foot=private — what’s going on there?

2. Some bridges (like https://www.openstreetmap.org/wa...
22023-02-20 16:10gurglypipe
♦873		 OK, for #2 I have tried to copy the access permissions from surrounding paths to the bridges from this changeset.

My changes are here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132797868

It would be great if you could take a look and double-check what I’ve done!
32023-02-20 16:26Roshmaps Hi Gurglypipe.

1. Human error - my apologies!

2. I will try and take more care with the bridge tagging from now on, sometimes we get carried away and forget to go back to these while path descriptions are being given.

3. All the mapping sessions we carry out are with National Trust Rangers...
42023-03-08 17:07gurglypipe
♦873		 I’ve just fixed #1 in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133449148, so that just leaves #3 unresolved.
52023-03-15 15:18NTSouthDownsEastPaths
♦2		 Hi gurglypipe, apologies for the delayed reponse. I have checked with our Ranger team on the ground so they can verify why we came to that decision during the mapping meeting. I will get back to you as soon as they respond. Cheers!
62023-03-15 15:20Roshmaps Hi gurglypipe, apologies for the delayed reponse. I have checked with our Ranger team on the ground so they can verify why we came to that decision during the mapping meeting. I will get back to you as soon as they respond. Cheers, Roisin
72023-03-15 15:25gurglypipe
♦873		 Thanks!
133668936
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-03-14 14:08		12023-03-15 00:02SomeoneElse
♦13,389		 Hello,
I've moved a bit of footpath from the England Coast Path Superrelation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3971851 to the local relation here https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14247952 .
It (like most other big relation) is split into pieces because the whole thing would be jus...
22023-03-15 15:24NTSouthDownsEastPaths
♦2		 Hi Andy, thanks for rectifying this. Cheers, Roisin
132831547
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-02-21 11:37		12023-03-12 09:36Robert Whittaker
♦274		 Hi! In this changeset, you added designation=public_footpath to this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152909708 . Could I check if this was a mistake, or if not, why you think it's a Public Footpath?

According to the Council data I have Blickling FP 14 and Aylsham FP 9 follow a path to...
22023-03-12 09:45Robert Whittaker
♦274		 Also, you added designation=public_footpath to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/235428293 . But in this case, I believe that the footpath has been diverted around the farm. See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926782/row_3238952_od_.pdf...
132961082
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-02-24 10:28		12023-02-27 11:09SomeoneElse
♦13,389		 Hello,
In this changeset you've added a couple of ways to the "superroute" of the wales coast path https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1820890 . That already includes the Llyn coast path https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1820886 , so these ways don't need to be added to...
22023-02-28 08:38Roshmaps Cheers for highlighting that Andy - it should be fixed now.
132206749
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-02-07 13:41		12023-02-23 12:05gurglypipe
♦873		 Heya, I’ve just finished looking through this changeset. Thanks for putting it together! It should make the path network (and particularly bridleways) a lot more usable for people around Sawrey on OSM.

I’ve made a few tweaks in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132922606 / https...
132795171
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-02-20 14:58		12023-02-20 15:50gurglypipe
♦873		 Hiya, thanks for your continuing work on updating path data from the National Trust.

Could you please consider splitting your edits up a bit? Other OSM contributors might be interested in checking the changes, and modifying 274 paths in one changeset makes that quite hard!

For example, this ed...
22023-02-20 16:10Roshmaps Hi Gurglypipe, cheers for the comment. I do appreciate you reminding me of this as sometimes its easy to get in the zone moving from one place to another :D. I will keep it in mind going forward during our mapping meetings. Cheers!
32023-02-20 16:17gurglypipe
♦873		 I know the feeling! Apologies if I comment on this edit again later — it’ll probably take me a few days to check through it so I might come back with some queries (but hopefully not!).

Happy editing! :)
132532620
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-02-14 11:30		12023-02-14 19:10Mateusz Konieczny
♦7,659		 Please, read and follow https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Changeset description should at least sort of indicate what you are editing and why.
22023-02-15 11:43Roshmaps Hi Mateusz, thanks for picking this up. In this case I was updating the designations for the restricted byway. In general the changesets are updating many factors relating to the different paths, tags and designations on NT properties, however I will take this feedback forward for any of the smaller...
131654657
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-01-24 14:28		12023-01-24 14:47gurglypipe
♦873		 Hi, just spot-checking a few things, I noticed this changeset drops the surface= and sac_scale= tags from (at least):
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/161487460
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85670296

Was that intentional? Both are important tags for guiding route planning decisions, ...
22023-01-28 10:56gurglypipe
♦873		 I re-added the sac_scale= and surface= tagging in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131803007, because I suspect it was dropped accidentally.

If I’m wrong, please let me know and we can edit the paths again. Ta!
131387145
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-01-17 15:52		12023-01-22 20:07BCNorwich
♦4,855		 Hi, It looks like there are quite a few problems of duplicated sections of highways. Please see here:- https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-0.74236&lat=51.64749&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_ar...
22023-01-23 08:54Roshmaps Hi Bernard, thank you for flagging this up - that is a fantastic tool that I didn't know existed! Will definitely be using this to review my future mapping sessions. Best wishes,
Roisin
131375626
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-01-17 11:52		12023-01-18 17:46mueschel
♦6,570		 Please check the tags of your edits. There are no "horses", "bicycles" or "motor_vehicles" in OSM.
131061143
by Roshmaps
@ 2023-01-09 15:43		12023-01-09 15:54gurglypipe
♦873		 Hiya, thanks for these changes!

There are a few ways in the changeset (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121597338) where designation=public_footpath has been changed to designation=public_path.

I don’t think designation=public_path is valid — it’s not listed on https://...
22023-01-10 08:49Roshmaps Hi! Complete accident Thanks so much for flagging this up! Will amend :)
32023-01-10 11:44gurglypipe
♦873		 Super, thanks for the fast response, and thanks to you and the National Trust for doing this initiative :)