| Changeset | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 180507221 by mackerski @ 2026-03-27 15:02 ~ 24 days ago | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,Untagged way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1493442741/ |
| 178503358 by mackerski @ 2026-02-13 13:06 ~ 2 months ago | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2643835/"FIXME=What is this the boundary of? Should remove if we don't know."That started life 13 years ago as an attempt at some form of definition of Rathfarnham, based on vibes, not legalities. Rathfarnham townland and Rathfarnh... |
| 152800241 by mackerski @ 2024-06-17 12:12 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1293068143/You had "FIXME=Apparent discontinuity in house numbering" for a few houses here.The houses facing Weston Road are in the seventy-something range. The houses facing Sweetmount Avenue are in the one-hundred-and-twenty-something rang... |
| 172244923 by mackerski @ 2025-09-21 13:16 ~ 6 months ago | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | ViriatoLusitano ♦164 | Thanks for giving it a fix. |
| 160956544 by mackerski @ 2025-01-03 16:24 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 10 months ago | stillhart ♦222 | very nicely mapped 👌 |
| 155416978 by mackerski @ 2024-08-18 14:05 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/371757361I'm sceptical about highway=turning_circle :) |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | mackerski | On Bing, you can see that the road widens on the left at its end, with a whitish-coloured car occupying the space. It’s widening from a very narrow base, but the purpose of such widening is to assist with turning. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Known as 'footpath parking'. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | mackerski | You could be right on this one. The reason I went for a turning circle was that the car appeared to be occupying a widened part at the end of the road, with all points south being more constrained on the west side of the road. But looking more closely, that constraint consists of a short area of bus... | |
| 148915515 by mackerski @ 2024-03-20 14:04 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Please see discussion on talk-ie@openstreetmap.org |
| 140740248 by mackerski @ 2023-09-03 01:13 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,How come you have removed ref=N5 ?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout?uselang=en-GBReference tags: For roundabouts that have ways either continuing through, or ending at the roundabout, ref=* and int_ref=* tags from those ways should be added to that roundabout... |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | mackerski | It’s a while since I read the wiki entry for roundabouts and those entries are fallible like the mappers who write them. It has always been my view that a roundabout is a junction and a neutral space. Where they have names, it is a name specific to the roundabout itself. Occasionally they have... | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Sorry, I meant to include the ref: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/11364999871. It isn't tagged as a roundabout.2. There is no risk of a multiplex number here, as the R309 ends here.3. It's obvious to a human that the N5 runs straight through the roundabout. For a SatNav, as ther... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | mackerski | 1. It is now. The history shows that it has never had that tag, so clearly the original mapper of the new roundabout missed it and so did I.2. A rare case, indeed. In this instance, there really is no path around the roundabout where N5 would be potentially wrong at any point of the roundabout. ... | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | mackerski | I've remembered where I saw roundabouts with actual refs of their own - it's in Kilkenny on the original ring road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/934089599 I'm not an enormous fan of how the council has applied refs like that to the roundabouts, but it's a clear case of s... | |
| 151356751 by mackerski @ 2024-05-15 11:46 ~ 1 year ago | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | Shandhivya ♦35 | Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great. Keep up the mapping - many thanks! #OMGuru --- #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151356751 |
| 439621 by mackerski @ 2007-09-15 20:20 ~ 18 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦9,769 | What is the meaning of gns:ADM1 tag at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52240804/history ? |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | mackerski | A long time ago, when we imported this data set of place names, we wondered whether we might wish to track future updates to the source data set. For that reason, we included a lot of meta data of this kind from that source. By now, it is clear that we will never do that, and I have been removing th... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | kmpoppe ♦99 | Stumbled upon this changeset when doing a "small towns"-check (place-nodes with a population and not more than 10 buildings in 800 metres around the node) and found only one (n/52242558).Has there ever been a check as to the data quality of the import? Was it described in the wiki 16 (!)... | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | Mateusz Konieczny ♦9,769 | I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4243873 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4243869 for nowI am not planning further actions for now | |
| 149818320 by mackerski @ 2024-04-10 12:46 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | danieldegroot2 ♦707 | Hey mackerski,It seems you are changing the check_date based on aerial imagery. Or, are you doing a survey / using Mapillary as you are elsewhere?I would suggest to not change construction objects based on aerial imagery unless you are sure they have changed (/make sure you add sources as ap... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | mackerski | Hi Daniel,I could have been clearer with the source in the changeset - I edited the check_date based on Anne being on-site in the last hour and shooting a photo. I've been at this OSM game for rather a long time, so please understand that I'm mindful of the issues you note. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | danieldegroot2 ♦707 | "on-site in the last hour and shooting a photo"Sure. I can't find it on the Mapillary website just yet, but it's fine. | |
| 149816440 by mackerski @ 2024-04-10 11:58 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | danieldegroot2 ♦707 | Hey mackerski,Thanks for the much needed improvements. You seem to be mapping based on the roof outline on regular Esri imagery. Note,- Usually building outlines are aligned to their footprint. If aerial imagery is taken from the side the roof will be offset from the location of the building f... |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | mackerski | Hi Daniel,I'm aware of the variety of imagery and the various offsets (back the day, I worked on a system to try to capture local corrections for these) and also of the issues around building "lean". I have been conferring with Anne on the alignment issue for these changes. Your inp... | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | danieldegroot2 ♦707 | Bing is too skewed and blurry in places. It is mostly used east of the river Barrow (noting also better resolution there), or anywhere outside Kilkenny and the surrounding area.The difference in alignment is not too large, but still considerable.(Bing is shifted to southeast compared to Esri Cla... | |
| 115105648 by mackerski @ 2021-12-18 18:38 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1013367184name="U Hansfield" seems exotic. :) |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | mackerski | It's an odd name, but it's real: https://www.ubyurbeo.com/finding-your-home/u-hansfieldAt least they didn't call it "Ur Hansfield" | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | Pisto81 ♦18 | It is an well organized urban for sure as the map depicts. | |
| 147741240 by mackerski @ 2024-02-21 16:50 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1253316868building=] ? |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | mackerski | Good catch. Fixed. | |
| 143448804 by mackerski @ 2023-11-01 00:57 ~ 2 years ago | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | LateNightTone ♦73 | Hi Mackerski, I just spotted your edit. I had thought from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:expressway that this road met all the requirements of an expressway? Essentially that it has full access control and isn't a motorway. It's a step beyond dual carriageway (https://wiki.openst... |
| 102759844 by mackerski @ 2021-04-11 23:43 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/928990961You have this as Bellingsmore Drive, whereas on site it appears to be The Drive (I hate addresses like "The Drive"). |
| 76299497 by mackerski @ 2019-10-28 13:14 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | DeBigC ♦116 | Thank you very muchly for your interpolation |
| 42656081 by mackerski @ 2016-10-05 12:18 ~ 9 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | DeBigC ♦116 | The house numbering here (579 Howth Road onwards) is discontinuous, which needs a review and splitting which may cure the issues. Several of the houses drawn as attached are not attached. I will be back in a couple of days to start fixing it. |
| 119034624 by mackerski @ 2022-03-28 18:26 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9615148835/history#map=16/53.3794/-6.0554Check operator details. |
| 114759962 by mackerski @ 2021-12-09 21:05 ~ 4 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/2745781/history#map=17/53.36488/-6.28821What's happening with the names here? |
| 42523688 by mackerski @ 2016-09-29 16:53 ~ 9 years ago | 1 | ~ 4 years ago | DeBigC ♦116 | This place seems to be mothballed, along with all the buildings on the connecting cluster. I will leave one pin (there was a duplicate) and tag the building as discused=yes pending something else happening on that site |
| 80447152 by mackerski @ 2020-02-02 21:33 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Hi,Did you do a GPS trace for the New Ross Bypass? If not, the guesstimates are very good.There are photos for about 80% of it now. |
| 2 | ~ 5 years ago | mackerski | Yes, I drove the route, the junctions and some key crossing roads, though in most cases I was tweaking earlier work performed by others during construction. | |
| 85685164 by mackerski @ 2020-05-24 14:50 ~ 5 years ago | 1 | ~ 5 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | Did you read the description? :) https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6189593816/history |
| 6789623 by mackerski @ 2010-12-28 16:00 ~ 15 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92064016"Could this be residential?" Possibly a former barracks that has been re-purposed. As to whether it is residential use is another matter. |
| 79115496 by mackerski @ 2020-01-02 13:47 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | mackerski | I need to flag an error in the source tag for this edit: the Mapillary footage I was looking at was for another nearby roundabout. I'm still convinced there could be no stop signs at an approach to a roundabout, so leaving the edit in place, but if somebody knows better, I'd love to hear t... |
| 34629172 by mackerski @ 2015-10-14 09:38 ~ 10 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | VictorIE ♦1,081 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3522905781 "Improbable house numbers" - the numbers are associated with the adjacent housing estate, but should be checked anyway. |
| 52105605 by mackerski @ 2017-09-16 21:49 ~ 8 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | DeBigC ♦116 | I saw your fixme here. I think the Mapillary sequences going both ways are good enough, so moved a section of the road north by several metres. |
| 72487222 by mackerski @ 2019-07-21 16:56 ~ 6 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | jmkie ♦6 | Howdy. If iR744 Link Road is an R road should it be secondary rather than tertiary? |
| 2 | ~ 6 years ago | mackerski | If so, yes, but it’s not for certain that a link road to R744 is part of R744 (or wasn’t to me). I changed it from motorway_link, which is certainly wrong, but wanted to play safe. Feel free to retag based on better info. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 years ago | jmkie ♦6 | Cool. Yep I will retag secondary based on signpost for this turn off on roundabout is R744. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p40CDpd4-d0&t=1100s | |
| 4 | ~ 6 years ago | jmkie ♦6 | Retagged...and then reverted to tertiary as I don't see it in statute and perhaps the signage at North end just refers to destination of the link road which is the R744. Signage at South end would be interesting to see... | |
| 5 | ~ 6 years ago | AndrewMcCarthy ♦10 | I drove this yesterday. The directional signage at the southern roundabout doesn't show R744, except for the existing east-west road. However, the distance and destination sign about 50 metres up the road after you've joined it has a little rectangular R744 on it above the large square whi... | |
| 59873767 by mackerski @ 2018-06-15 12:50 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 6 years ago | EoghanM ♦36 | Gardening at it's best :D |
| 62948323 by mackerski @ 2018-09-26 14:23 ~ 7 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | Hjart ♦4,116 | Please do not touch danish address nodes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Denmark |
| 14277433 by mackerski @ 2012-12-15 00:35 ~ 13 years ago | 1 | ~ 7 years ago | SK53 ♦869 | A2 through Carnlough up to where Largy Road rejoins to the N is marked as having a height limit of 3.8m. This seems a little unlikely as I cant see any bridges on the road at all. It also doesnt appear in the NIDirect list of low bridges (although a non-bridge height restriction may exist independen... |
| 2 | ~ 7 years ago | SK53 ♦869 | Not to worry found it! https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/inejYJR3B3RE8TO1KzK0DQ | |
| 329538 by mackerski @ 2008-10-13 23:56 ~ 17 years ago | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | SK53 ♦869 | I know it's a hell of a long time ago, but I just wondered if you remember anything about the post box on Thomas St, Armagh? Just reviewed my survey images and realised there's no sign of it on the street itself. |
| 2 | ~ 8 years ago | SK53 ♦869 | To make life a bit easier, this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/304456247 | |
| 3 | ~ 8 years ago | mackerski | I recall it being wall mounted | |
| 4 | ~ 8 years ago | SK53 ♦869 | I've re-found it! Was on a later photo in my survey. It's now a lamp box outside Sainsbury's which I've now added https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5267960979. | |
| 9221155 by mackerski @ 2011-09-05 19:29 ~ 14 years ago | 1 | ~ 8 years ago | amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️⚧️ ♦364 | This building ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1424371670 ) appears to be in the middle of a field and near a farm |
| 2 | ~ 8 years ago | mackerski | The change set appears to relate to some old ODbL cleanup. I may have done a tagging fix or something on this node, but I have no knowledge of the POI itself. I do see buildings nearby that are consistent with the label, but I'm not prepared to move the node without a real source. I have added ... | |
| 44425961 by mackerski @ 2016-12-15 15:16 ~ 9 years ago | 1 | ~ 9 years ago | SK53 ♦869 | Having Dunleary coming up in Nominatim searches instead of Dun Laoghaire seems very anachronistic. But then Kingstown would be a hell of a lot worse! |
| 2 | ~ 9 years ago | mackerski | It would be anachronistic if Dunleary wasn't the name in daily use by most people. But it is. The vague similarity between the spellings of the Irish and English names coupled with an initiative to get people to move to the Irish name has led to an odd situation where people say "Dunleary... | |
| 3 | ~ 9 years ago | SK53 ♦869 | And I thought you'd just tell me to change my browser locale settings. | |
| 35616357 by mackerski @ 2015-11-27 18:27 ~ 10 years ago | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | GerdP ♦2,829 | Hi there!Please explain this change. My understanding is that motorway_junction was correct. |
| 2 | ~ 10 years ago | mackerski | Hi. It's not correct - the motorway_junction tag is only appropriate for an exit from a controlled-access road (doesn't have to be a motorway). Everything about the tag is intended to be interpreted by, say, navigation systems, as a routing decision point where the only action is to exit, ... | |
| 3 | ~ 10 years ago | GerdP ♦2,829 | OK, I agree that motorway_junction is notreally good here. A few days ago there was a discussion about named junctions, http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Named-junctions-tt5859074.htmlso I suggest to use highway=junction instead. | |
| 4 | ~ 10 years ago | mackerski | The bit problem with this idea is that most of these particular junctions already have a highway tag set, highway=traffic_signals. And what we realise, I think, is that the status of these nodes as junction points on this particular route is not their primary purpose, making it problematic to set a ... | |
| 5 | ~ 10 years ago | GerdP ♦2,829 | I have no idea what these ref=* on the nodes mean.I found 79 nodes with a ref that starts with"J" in Dublin. Some have the same ref,some numbers are missing, for example J78 and J80 exist, but J79 doesn't.52 are highway=traffc_signals14 are highway=city_junctilonthe others... |