| Changeset | # | Tmstmp UTC | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 175073837 by rskedgell @ 2025-11-24 16:04 | 1 | 2025-11-26 17:27 | RaccoonFederation ♦97 | Do you think the street names or numbers you removed were incorrect? Some of them were set by me using Street Complete, ie on the ground survey. It's possible they are wrong if you have better information |
| 2 | 2025-11-26 23:44 | rskedgell | I'm pretty sure that I haven't removed any numbers. Happy to revert any street name changes lost from your SC changeset, I'll do it tomorrow.The footways appear to be have names from OS Open Names, although as they don't have USRNs, it's hard to tell the extent. | |
| 3 | 2025-11-27 00:03 | rskedgell | Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175176162My apologies - I had added Austin Crescent to other buildings without an addr:street=* set in that block, then realised that it wasn't a safe assumption. The houses on Barcote Walk shouldn't have been included in that. | |
| 4 | 2025-11-27 20:20 | RaccoonFederation ♦97 | Thanks! | |
| 158202605 by rskedgell @ 2024-10-22 09:22 | 1 | 2024-11-05 10:11 | EneaSuper ♦463 | Hi rskedgell, according to this video this acre is part of the US territory, can you confirm this?https://youtu.be/1d5L0vn8ezw |
| 2 | 2024-11-05 14:37 | JassKurn ♦168 | EneaSuper, The land is owned by the USA (US Government), but is not US territory. The video is wrong, and is part of a growing problem Youtube has with fake information videos. The voice is AI generated. | |
| 3 | 2024-11-05 14:45 | EneaSuper ♦463 | I thought it was bullshit. Thanks a lot for the clarification ❤️ | |
| 4 | 2025-11-08 17:22 | falcon2 ♦2 | Possibly this should be reverted. Here's a not AI slop video that seems decently researched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQOZUaSoy90 | |
| 5 | 2025-11-08 22:42 | rskedgell | The addr:* tags refer to the *actual* address of the object, not that of its owner or operator. There is the abandoned contact:addr:*Feel free to add those tags, together with appropriate wikidata links, if you have an OSM-compatible source for the information. | |
| 6 | 2025-11-08 22:59 | rskedgell | Also, please note that I attempted to contact the user who added the incorrect address and waited 3 weeks for a response before reverting the changeset.https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157041429 | |
| 174337000 by rskedgell @ 2025-11-07 14:30 | 1 | 2025-11-07 16:22 | rskedgell | * Ross-on-Wye HR9, not Deal CT14 |
| 174257396 by rskedgell @ 2025-11-05 19:57 | 1 | 2025-11-06 09:03 | rskedgell | * Deal CT14 (typo in comment only) |
| 172587621 by rskedgell @ 2025-09-28 23:19 | 1 | 2025-11-01 02:37 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | Hello,Was the change of highway=crossing to link on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2371177121/history deliberate?Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-11-01 02:38 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | Any idea what https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13179298428/history is? It does not seem connected to anything. | |
| 3 | 2025-11-01 12:47 | rskedgell | No, n2371177121 was unintentional, fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174060538 | |
| 4 | 2025-11-01 12:50 | rskedgell | The unconnected crossing node looks like a fat-fingered copy and paste error, removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174060650 | |
| 5 | 2025-11-01 13:57 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | Thanks! | |
| 166557160 by rskedgell @ 2025-05-21 08:50 | 1 | 2025-10-31 21:54 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | I'm guessing that "crossing:signals=Tufnell Park" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968619222 is a typo :) |
| 2 | 2025-11-01 12:44 | rskedgell | Oh dear, that's embarrassing. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174060418 | |
| 172486440 by rskedgell @ 2025-09-26 13:34 | 1 | 2025-10-23 10:33 | spiregrain ♦219 | Where you've added the parking zone tag (like in this changeset) should there always be a parking:[side]=* value? (Likely streetside). Take way 1432750640, for example - it has a parking zone tag, but nothing to say there is parking actually present. |
| 2 | 2025-10-23 12:55 | rskedgell | I think parking:$side:zone probably does have a place even where other parking tags haven't (yet) been set. Firstly, there's a traffic order which includes that street in a CPZ, which is the only tag we currently have for it. Maybe a relation would be better, but none has yet been prop... | |
| 3 | 2025-10-24 08:27 | spiregrain ♦219 | It does make sense that a street is in a parking zone, whether or not there is somewhere to park on it. It might also be a good survey prompt. Thanks for taking the time to respond. | |
| 4 | 2025-10-24 10:14 | rskedgell | This is the sort of thing where I really should write an OSM diary entry describing what I'm doing and why! When I start adding the actual restrictions, I'll write something. | |
| 173230334 by rskedgell @ 2025-10-13 14:17 | 1 | 2025-10-13 14:25 | rskedgell | * source=The Waltham Forest (Parking Places, Loading Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Order 2025 |
| 173230448 by rskedgell @ 2025-10-13 14:19 | 1 | 2025-10-13 14:25 | rskedgell | * source=The Waltham Forest (Parking Places, Loading Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) Order 2025 |
| 173036129 by rskedgell @ 2025-10-09 07:48 | 1 | 2025-10-12 06:32 | rskedgell | * USRNs, not UPRNs! |
| 172559397 by rskedgell @ 2025-09-28 10:14 | 1 | 2025-09-28 10:16 | rskedgell | * this is actually Banbury Park (BP) CPZ |
| 170815282 by rskedgell @ 2025-08-22 07:49 | 1 | 2025-09-21 18:02 | tomhukins ♦233 | Thank you for your helpful work improving the map.I notice you have tagged two ways for Briscoe Lane in this change as "sidewalk:both:surface=traffic_island" which seems odd as "traffic_island" seems like a confusing value for a "surface" to me.Is this a mistake... |
| 2 | 2025-09-22 07:30 | rskedgell | No, that was a fat finger error on my part. Thanks for spotting it, removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172278492 | |
| 171492409 by rskedgell @ 2025-09-05 11:03 | 1 | 2025-09-05 11:37 | trigpoint ♦2,503 | Thank you Robert |
| 171404573 by rskedgell @ 2025-09-03 12:06 | 1 | 2025-09-03 14:49 | spiregrain ♦219 | Thank you for doing this. |
| 171072188 by rskedgell @ 2025-08-27 10:21 | 1 | 2025-08-27 10:22 | rskedgell | +source=Bing street side imagery |
| 171072046 by rskedgell @ 2025-08-27 10:18 | 1 | 2025-08-27 10:18 | rskedgell | +source=Bing street side imagery |
| 169979465 by rskedgell @ 2025-08-04 22:57 | 1 | 2025-08-13 19:25 | LordGarySugar ♦132 | Nobody actually uses this name in everyday speech, in my opinion Brisbane Road is the common name and should be used for name=, with BetWright stadium only tagged as official_name |
| 2 | 2025-08-14 00:16 | rskedgell | I'd be happier if my team's stadium kept its original name, too. Unfortunately, what is displayed in fixture lists is the official name. If you're confident that Nominatim recognises official_name=*, feel free to revert this. | |
| 3 | 2025-08-14 01:14 | LordGarySugar ♦132 | I'm fairly sure nominatim does support official_name, see searching for lastminute.com London Eye...In my opinion OSM should mirror Wikipedia in keeping the common names of stadiums instead of renaming articles or OSM objects when they get a new sponsorship namesLeyton Orient is your club... | |
| 4 | 2025-08-14 07:57 | rskedgell | Every other London stadium appears to have kept its real name, so I've reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170421897Your 3D mapping is very impressive. I played about with it for a bit, but lost interest after Streets GL went from using live data to a never updated planet do... | |
| 169343421 by rskedgell @ 2025-07-23 13:06 | 1 | 2025-08-06 13:38 | CJJ2501 ♦24 | Hi rskedgell,Rule 1 in the "Rules for pedestrians" section of the UK's Highway Code states: "Pavements and footways (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided."(https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35)... |
| 2 | 2025-08-06 13:49 | rskedgell | The wiki page foe foot=use_sidepath clearly said, even before the edit you quote "In some countries it is illegal for pedestrians to use a road if a parallel compulsory sidepath exists."This situation never arises in the UK.Anything in the Highway Code with "should" or &q... | |
| 3 | 2025-08-06 14:11 | rskedgell | For a discussion about the frequently incorrect addition of foot=no through a StreetComplete quest which is now disabled in the UK, see:https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/poll-should-streetcomplete-disable-the-are-pedestrians-forbidden-to-walk-on-this-road-without-sidewalk-here-quest-in-the-uk/... | |
| 4 | 2025-08-06 14:11 | CJJ2501 ♦24 | As I understand it, the foot=use_sidepath tag exactly reflects that they still have that right, just that using the sidewalk/pavement is preferred, as stated by the official guidance document from the national government.The foot=no tag is for cases where it is illegal for pedestrians to use a r... | |
| 5 | 2025-08-06 14:56 | rskedgell | You did add a very small number foot=no tags, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184658172/history/9You may also infer the UK mapping community's general attitude to foot=use_sidepath from the fact that there are only 72 instances of that tag in the UK, 10% of which are on nodes (no ide... | |
| 6 | 2025-08-06 15:07 | CJJ2501 ♦24 | Ah, OK then those foot=no tags were definitely wrong. Thanks for fixing them. | |
| 169808418 by rskedgell @ 2025-08-01 09:49 | 1 | 2025-08-01 21:35 | gurglypipe ♦950 | (For anyone reading this in future, this edit is in response to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169802057) |
| 169815721 by rskedgell @ 2025-08-01 12:31 | 1 | 2025-08-01 12:33 | rskedgell | * junction with Freshwater Road, not Green Lane |
| 169002497 by rskedgell @ 2025-07-16 09:06 | 1 | 2025-07-16 09:26 | rskedgell | * from junctions with The Highway, not Commercial Road |
| 165579462 by rskedgell @ 2025-04-29 08:07 | 1 | 2025-04-29 21:33 | gwilliams2nd ♦3 | Apologies, misread the wiki and applied the wrong info. Thank you for fixing it. |
| 164716098 by rskedgell @ 2025-04-09 10:00 | 1 | 2025-04-09 19:20 | byziden ♦3 | This unfortunately has not resolved the issue. For example https://pasteboard.co/0CL8icNEP83n.png |
| 2 | 2025-04-09 22:11 | rskedgell | For different routing services, it can take a while before they "know" about updates. Although the default OSM Carto tiles update in minutes, it can be as long as several weeks, depending on how often they update. For example, when I use Komoot to plan running routes, it's typically a... | |
| 3 | 2025-04-09 22:28 | byziden ♦3 | Totally understand third parties not updating quickly. Once had a case of a missing flat from Postcode Address File, took months to fix. OSM seems to take a while before openstreetmap.org/#map updates, will keep checking. Google Maps and Apple Maps now seem to be giving correct navigation and postco... | |
| 4 | 2025-04-10 07:23 | rskedgell | Good luck. I think you've done everything you reasonably can. | |
| 164680456 by rskedgell @ 2025-04-08 13:45 | 1 | 2025-04-08 13:46 | rskedgell | * Star Hill, not Star Lane! |
| 164326114 by rskedgell @ 2025-03-31 11:34 | 1 | 2025-03-31 22:58 | rskedgell | (added in wrong place, own error - reverted) |
| 163776528 by rskedgell @ 2025-03-18 13:55 | 1 | 2025-03-18 14:06 | EdUden123 ♦1 | Hi, I didn't mean to delete the footpath. Somewhere it is listed as a road on a base data set, which is incorrect but shows up on SatNav as the route to my house and frequently delivery vehicles which should use Kingsdown Road use Norway Drove and get stuck. It shouldn't show any vehicle... |
| 2 | 2025-03-18 14:23 | rskedgell | No problem, thanks for the quick reply. That definitely sounds like motor_vehicle=private, so I've updated it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163777678It may take a few weeks for changes to propagate to routing software. | |
| 163659108 by rskedgell @ 2025-03-15 16:44 | 1 | 2025-03-15 16:47 | rskedgell | ... was correctly tagged as highway=secondaryActual source used: OS OpenMap Local (April 2024) |
| 163458148 by rskedgell @ 2025-03-10 20:02 | 1 | 2025-03-10 21:31 | 0235 ♦35 | Bowling Green Road looks fantastic! The new Junction is a lot to take in, but plenty of useful tags I can use elsewhere! |
| 2 | 2025-03-10 23:25 | rskedgell | Thanks! Traffic planners like to make things challenging for mappers :-)I'll be doing a few more updates this week, roughly following the route of Sunday's half marathon, while it's till fresh in my memory. | |
| 3 | 2025-03-10 23:43 | 0235 ♦35 | I saw quite a few runners on Sunday, from the comfort of the top deck of a bus though! Did you get a GPS trace of the route?I may still poke away at getting some more houses added around SW of town, so I will try and avoid any road / pavement structures for a small while. | |
| 4 | 2025-03-11 09:18 | rskedgell | I've uploaded the trace as https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rskedgell/traces/11784266 | |
| 162251302 by rskedgell @ 2025-02-07 16:09 | 1 | 2025-02-15 12:24 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | Thanks! |
| 162097542 by rskedgell @ 2025-02-03 18:19 | 1 | 2025-02-06 13:24 | SomeoneElse2 ♦480 | Hello,I think that this edit might have introduced a gap in the Saxon Shore Way - I've filled that in in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8864 .Best Regards,Andy |
| 2 | 2025-02-06 15:16 | rskedgell | Thanks, and apologies for missing it.I've got at least two bus route relations to repair as well. The mapper who introduced all the pretend dual carriageways created a few gaps, which I'm afraid I've added to. | |
| 162203519 by rskedgell @ 2025-02-06 11:06 | 1 | 2025-02-06 11:15 | rskedgell | ^ Changeset comment should read "updated sidewalk and highway tagging in Gillingham" |
| 161933882 by rskedgell @ 2025-01-30 11:40 | 1 | 2025-01-30 17:55 | spiregrain ♦219 | There are some clues, possibly admissible in the planning application for the work currently underway - 24/01040/LA3 (LBN) |
| 2 | 2025-01-30 19:06 | rskedgell | Thanks. There's also a proposed traffic order referring to Disraeli Walk. However, a source which definitely isn't compatible with OSM gives another name.I added a note as well:https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4607531 | |
| 156097601 by rskedgell @ 2024-09-02 12:54 | 1 | 2025-01-17 11:20 | Derick Rethans ♦156 | Hi,can you please *not* add separate footpaths for roads where there is no separate footpaths. Normal pavements should *not* be mapped like this.cheers,Derick |
| 2 | 2025-01-17 11:42 | rskedgell | It's interesting that you should think that the StreetComplete AddPathSurface quest has added anything. The fact that none of modified ways is at v1 might be a clue here. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-21 22:33 | Negreheb ♦305 | https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.535456586436&lng=-0.22012048021702&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=303714381394869&x=0.4873570664570987&y=0.5738906063440863&zoom=0 andhttps://www.google.at/maps/@51.5367009,-0.2212506,3a,75y,158.15h,80.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjR8l4zpNYCc9k... | |
| 4 | 2025-01-21 22:35 | Negreheb ♦305 | > Normal pavements should *not* be mapped like this.This is wrong. Please link a source for this statement. | |
| 5 | 2025-01-21 22:37 | Negreheb ♦305 | Or - did i get the wrong street and you mean somewhere else without sidewalk? If thats the case, i apologize for beeing to quickly with my decision and ask for you to link the highway that should not have a separate sidewalk tagged :) | |
| 155789491 by rskedgell @ 2024-08-26 15:44 | 1 | 2025-01-17 11:20 | Derick Rethans ♦156 | Hi,can you please *not* add separate footpaths for roads where there is no separate footpaths. Normal pavements should *not* be mapped like this.I will have to remove them again.cheers,Derick |
| 2 | 2025-01-17 11:43 | rskedgell | And your vandalism will be reverted and reported to DWG. | |
| 3 | 2025-01-18 23:58 | kitsee ♦115 | Hi Derick.Mapping sidewalks as separate ways is an approved proposal giving it the highest status of legitimacy in this community. Sidewalks do not have to be separated from the highway to be mapped as a separate way. As the wiki states, a sidewalk mapped as a separate way is a refinement of footw... | |
| 156971536 by rskedgell @ 2024-09-22 22:44 | 1 | 2025-01-17 11:19 | Derick Rethans ♦156 | Hi,can you please *not* add separate footpaths for roads where there is no separate footpaths. Normal pavements should *not* be mapped like this.I will have to remove them again.cheers,Derick |
| 2 | 2025-01-17 11:40 | rskedgell | You had ample opportunity to participate in the discussion on OSM Community here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-mass-deletion-of-separate-sidewalks/117491 - and could also have demonstrated the minimal courtesy of replying to my changeset comments.The wiki does not support you... | |
| 157614564 by rskedgell @ 2024-10-08 08:40 | 1 | 2024-11-12 18:11 | ceirios ♦72 | Hi there, been here recently and noticed your fixmes on Tyndall Street.No physical separation (other than the islands) - as to whether it's a dual carriageway, no clue unfortunately. |
| 157630302 by rskedgell @ 2024-10-08 14:34 | 1 | 2024-10-08 15:12 | spiregrain ♦219 | Thanks! I've been on a mission to close out some Notes in the area, but this one was slipping into the too-hard pile. |
| 2 | 2024-10-08 15:42 | rskedgell | I'd noticed - and thanks!I somehow missed parking:*:zone=* when I added parking tags here. Eventually I'll get around to adding it for the local CPZs, as it should make adding parking:*:conditional=* rules consistently a bit easier.I was also thinking of changing the parking=lane p... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-08 15:49 | spiregrain ♦219 | I'll confess that I need to read the wiki again every time I look at parking tags.I did volunteer our area for whatever this guy is up to on the strength of all the parking tagging that seems to be in place already.https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/1fspwyi/region_with_on_s... | |
| 157408024 by rskedgell @ 2024-10-03 08:36 | 1 | 2024-10-03 10:08 | morph1973 ♦1 | I'm a citystrides.com user which gets its data from OSM, Titnore Lane is now showing as the only incomplete item in Worthing so I copied the profile of adjacent Highdown Rise, 'no pedestrian access'. The alternative is I complete the item by running the length of Titnore Lane, its unl... |
| 2 | 2024-10-03 11:33 | rskedgell | I am not convinced that the foot=no tag which you added to Highdown Rise in 2022 represents a real and explicitly signed prohibition either. That would make both Highdown Gardens and The Highdown unreachable on foot from Littlehampton Road. It would also make the pedestrian crossing over both carria... | |
| 3 | 2024-10-03 16:34 | morph1973 ♦1 | Thanks for the reply! Highdown Rise has a separate footpath on OSM just to the east but it looks like little more than a worn line in a field so don't know how 'official' it is. I agree that one set of users shouldn't manipulate the data so to have an adverse effect on everyone e... | |
| 157156102 by rskedgell @ 2024-09-27 06:38 | 1 | 2024-09-27 18:12 | ACarlotti ♦158 | The reverted changeset was actually reopening one stretch of road as well, so you probably need to revert half of your revert, or revert the earlier changeset as well. |
| 2 | 2024-09-27 18:39 | rskedgell | Damn, sorry I missed that. Is there any chance you could edit the offending section of road so that it's fixed in tonights planet.osm extracts? I won't have access to a decent editor until tomorrow afternoon. | |
| 130922939 by rskedgell @ 2023-01-05 20:25 | 1 | 2023-06-06 17:10 | MacLondon ♦224 | It looks as though you might not have got the southbound primary 'route' on Puddle Dock as you had intended. Worth having another look at it. |
| 2 | 2023-06-06 17:40 | rskedgell | That was an odd one. USRN 8100895 (Numbered Street record, presumably A3211) only extends up the southbound carriageway between the service road under The Mermaid and Upper Thames Street, but covers all of the other carriageway.Possibly better to map it all as highway=primary, but without adding... | |
| 3 | 2023-06-06 18:25 | MacLondon ♦224 | It might be related to the Tideways works, as the current (long-term diversion) two-way cycle link between C3 and C6 resulted in the sliproad from Victoria Embankment becoming exit only... until the previous layout gets restored. | |
| 4 | 2024-09-02 17:20 | Vas111 ♦87 | I will restore primary status to both carriageways on Puddle Dock; regardless of the official status, it connects two primary roads and right turns from QVS are allowed southbound. Besides, there is still a primary stub at the bottom of the southbound carriageway. | |
| 5 | 2024-09-02 19:06 | rskedgell | @Vas111 feel free | |
| 155943594 by rskedgell @ 2024-08-29 18:55 | 1 | 2024-08-31 06:28 | Milhouse ♦27 | Hi Robert,Is there a place I can look up what the waymap-project is?I have been creating "unmarked crossings" in my local area in order to record the presence (or absence) of tactile paving and drop kerbs/flush crossings. I like the idea of OSM being able to help create pedestrian rout... |
| 2 | 2024-08-31 10:15 | rskedgell | Hi Milhouse,I add quite a lot of separate sidewalks and detailed crossings, because I also want effective routing for pedestrians and those with visual or mobility impairments.The crossing tags I deleted were adding by inactive user @alisonlung (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/... | |
| 3 | 2024-08-31 16:09 | Milhouse ♦27 | Hi againI didn't mean to imply you were doing anything wrong, I've deleted at least one decorative sidewalk myself. There have been discussions in the talk-gb mailing list (are you on there?) about when it's appropriate to map them separately and when they just add clutter and no ... | |
| 4 | 2024-08-31 16:19 | Milhouse ♦27 | This is an example of a side road crossing I added. I think it gives enough information to a pedestrian router and in an imaginary situation (?) where you could tell a router "I'm in a wheelchair" it could slightly alter routes to avoid places where there are high kerbs.https://www.... | |
| 132891775 by rskedgell @ 2023-02-22 17:14 | 1 | 2024-07-19 16:46 | wombatmaper ♦84 | You added this with vegetarian=no and vegan=yes, which is impossible. You know which one is correct? |
| 2 | 2024-07-19 22:43 | rskedgell | Thanks for spotting that, should have been yes to both. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154161336 | |
| 3 | 2024-07-19 22:49 | wombatmaper ♦84 | ah nice. I was using a overpass querry to fix all such issues | |
| 153691518 by rskedgell @ 2024-07-08 08:16 | 1 | 2024-07-08 11:19 | spiregrain ♦219 | Have you found the Überterracer plugin for JOSM? It can take a rectangular terrace object and convert it into an numbered set of L-shaped houses in one-or-two clicks. Asking because I only found it this month, and it would be super-useful for what you're doing in this area. |
| 2 | 2024-07-08 13:23 | rskedgell | I saw you mentioned it on another changeset and meant to download it. Thanks for the reminder - I've downloaded it and will give it a go shortly.Slightly related to this, I'm drafting a proposal to import postcodes from ONSUD, UPRNs and INSPIRE IDs.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki... | |
| 3 | 2024-07-08 13:42 | spiregrain ♦219 | I saw the ebb and flow of your changesets with the INSPIRE IDs. I was working up the gumption to ask about whether INSPIRE IDs properly belong to buildings or to land parcels. In your recent changesets, you'd applied them to the buildings. I'll add some commentary to the proposal, if ... | |
| 4 | 2024-07-08 14:24 | rskedgell | Please do add some commentary!While INSPIRE IDs do strictly speaking apply to the whole extent of the property, the same could be said to of the UPRN and even the postal address.Where there is only one addressable building within an INSPIRE polygon (a single freehold property) and only a sin... | |
| 153318338 by rskedgell @ 2024-06-29 05:51 | 1 | 2024-06-30 06:51 | rskedgell | Reverted, see discussion in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153312735 |
| 151776001 by rskedgell @ 2024-05-24 15:22 | 1 | 2024-05-24 15:23 | rskedgell | * Added house numbers from out of copyright OS maps, specifically NLS - OS 1:1,250/1:2,500 National Grid maps, 1947-1963 |
| 149764140 by rskedgell @ 2024-04-09 08:08 | 1 | 2024-04-09 12:17 | asturksever ♦4 | It seems you deleted sidewalks geometries which I created in my local area. Please could you provide more details why did you remove sidewalk geometries? Sidewalk geometries are helpful for creating a walking/running routes on the apps which used OSM data. |
| 2 | 2024-04-09 12:50 | rskedgell | The details were provided in the changeset comment, to which you could have replied.Sidewalks which do not connect to anything are *not* useful for creating running/walking routes. They're at best decorative and at worst spam.The sidewalks added by you which connect to other highways ar... | |
| 149615825 by rskedgell @ 2024-04-05 13:41 | 1 | 2024-04-06 06:00 | BCNorwich ♦5,005 | Hi, I see your crossing node Node: 11793731769 has been placed on top of traffic signal node Node: 8334178965 making a duplication of the crossing point. Should the tags of both nodes be combined to make one feature on a single node, as a signal-controlled crossing?Regards Bernard. |
| 2 | 2024-04-06 13:12 | rskedgell | Thanks - I spotted that when I opened it in Vespucci. Should be fixed in #149645891 | |
| 148278156 by rskedgell @ 2024-03-06 06:55 | 1 | 2024-03-06 07:49 | trigpoint ♦2,503 | HiAccess=no is still present after your edit.Cheers Phil |
| 2 | 2024-03-06 08:10 | rskedgell | Hi @trigpoint. I'm waiting for a reply from @ajmat as they give a source more recent than the Mapillary imagery available to me. If I don't get a response, I'll go there tomorrow and check. | |
| 3 | 2024-03-06 08:15 | trigpoint ♦2,503 | Ok, thank you. Phil | |
| 147080891 by rskedgell @ 2024-02-05 07:14 | 1 | 2024-02-06 15:02 | DaveF ♦1,590 | Hi What rule in Osmose informed you to remove area tags from platforms? |
| 2 | 2024-02-06 15:46 | rskedgell | Thanks for spotting and correcting this. Removing area=yes was clearly wrong for railway=platform, since the wiki explicitly states that it's required.It took a while to find another station where this arose and it appears that the JOSM unnecessary tag rule incorrectly flags area=yes in com... | |
| 146608359 by rskedgell @ 2024-01-23 21:02 | 1 | 2024-01-28 15:12 | Arturo Francisco Barbero ♦52 | 👍 |
| 146394481 by rskedgell @ 2024-01-18 08:23 | 1 | 2024-01-18 09:01 | spiregrain ♦219 | This Sleep.8 store is a dupe, added by a new user who seems to be a Sleep.8 enthusiast. I've messaged their changeset - 146391325 |
| 146322273 by rskedgell @ 2024-01-16 12:38 | 1 | 2024-01-16 14:49 | spiregrain ♦219 | It's fun to split terraces. Should way 146322273 have that kink at the south end near the postbox? |
| 2 | 2024-01-16 15:03 | rskedgell | I'll add postcodes and UPRNs to the split buildings in the next day or two.The kink in w1084067488 looks a bit sharper than it should, but it's where a short single lane section changes to one traffic lane + a parking lane. The line vehicles follow does not really deviate here, but the... | |
| 3 | 2024-01-16 15:06 | spiregrain ♦219 | Very good! Thank you. | |
| 139437210 by rskedgell @ 2023-08-04 11:28 | 1 | 2023-09-21 21:02 | Falsernet ♦151 | Shouldn't the tagging be amended then, rather than having painted turning lanes mapped as separate ways? According to the wiki to map a turning lane as a *_link, it should be "physically separated by an obstruction." |
| 2 | 2023-09-21 21:58 | rskedgell | Yes, the tagging should have been amended. As you didn't see fit to do that, it was quicker to undelete. | |
| 3 | 2023-09-21 22:26 | rskedgell | Feel free to delete the *_link ways, but please update the lanes=*, turn_lanes=*, sidewalk*=* and cycleway*=* tags on w1194242332 and w1194242339 | |
| 140480748 by rskedgell @ 2023-08-28 07:47 | 1 | 2023-08-28 09:46 | rskedgell | HGVs start at 3.5t, not 7.5t.Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140481678 |
| 140272392 by rskedgell @ 2023-08-23 11:52 | 1 | 2023-08-23 13:35 | rskedgell | * Buckingham Road, not Bicester Road |
| 139891708 by rskedgell @ 2023-08-14 22:48 | 1 | 2023-08-14 22:49 | rskedgell | Changesets 139884646, 139884573, 139884564, 139884535, 139884500, 139884456 |
| 138786887 by rskedgell @ 2023-07-20 22:43 | 1 | 2023-07-20 22:44 | rskedgell | * Cranberry Lane, not Cranberry Close |
| 128441226 by rskedgell @ 2022-11-03 14:09 | 1 | 2023-07-14 18:52 | voschix ♦188 | Reverting. There is a separately mapped segregated foot-cycle-way |
| 2 | 2023-07-14 20:12 | rskedgell | Thanks for spotting and correcting that. | |
| 136040522 by rskedgell @ 2023-05-13 04:50 | 1 | 2023-05-14 08:27 | BorekSigar ♦10 | There is no reason to put separate sidewalks on a residential road. |
| 2 | 2023-05-14 08:29 | BorekSigar ♦10 | Why are there separate sidewalks in Bedfont? | |
| 3 | 2023-05-14 09:26 | rskedgell | 1) Staines Road is a primary road (A315), not a residential road. 2) Because someone chose to map them. As with the individual orchard trees you deleted a couple of years ago, a feature not being mapped the way you would do it is not an adequate reason to delete it. The feature not existing or b... | |
| 135927160 by rskedgell @ 2023-05-10 09:23 | 1 | 2023-05-10 10:26 | dankarran ♦98 | There aren't any foot prohibition signs from the south side, but obviously no pavement either, so shouldn't route foot traffic that way.I'd also debate the smoothness=excellent in the left hand lane, it's a bit bumpy on the bike!https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=247286654... |
| 2 | 2023-05-10 10:42 | rskedgell | I found a "no pedestrians" sign in the aerial imagery just to the North of Airport Roundabout, but it's at an odd angle in some imagery. Sign and confirmation added in #135929841.The smoothness=excellent tag was added by another user in 2015 and was probably true at the time. I th... | |
| 3 | 2023-05-10 10:42 | rskedgell | * streetside imagery, not aerial! | |
| 4 | 2023-05-10 11:00 | dankarran ♦98 | Ah yes, good catch. Looks like it's angled so you can see it from the airport side but not obvious if you're already on the bridge on the western side. | |
| 122346312 by rskedgell @ 2022-06-13 22:57 | 1 | 2023-05-01 01:38 | Warin61 ♦2,687 | Hi,I'm rather confused by the multiple tags on this object. A water well. And a bubbler - projects a small jet of water upwards for drinking. If it has both of these it may be better to separate them .. the well as a way and the bubbler as a node??? |
| 2 | 2023-05-01 02:17 | rskedgell | It's probably better to revert to historic=building or use historic=yes | |
| 3 | 2023-05-01 07:10 | Warin61 ♦2,687 | Is it a current source of water? | |
| 133851370 by rskedgell @ 2023-03-19 10:12 | 1 | 2023-03-19 13:51 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | HelloJust mentioning in case you're still half-way through fixing it - there's an extra spur at http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=6473828 that has appeared (like caused by whatever your fixing here rather than this changeset)Cheers,Andy |
| 2 | 2023-03-19 14:15 | rskedgell | Hi Andy,Thanks for spotting it. It should now be fixed, along with a couple of short gaps.Rob | |
| 3 | 2023-03-19 23:58 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | Great - thanks! | |
| 132089241 by rskedgell @ 2023-02-04 20:17 | 1 | 2023-02-04 21:00 | ancuanatuath ♦9 | Why did you remove these? I can't see anything wrong with them in the history. |
| 2 | 2023-02-04 21:24 | rskedgell | We had a large number of separate sidewalks added following undiscussed organised edits, apparently on on behalf of Waymap (certainly using their tasking manager). It's hard to tell what the intention was, because neither @alisonlung, nor anyone else at Waymap seems keen to discuss the problems... | |
| 3 | 2023-02-04 21:24 | rskedgell | Sorry, wrong link above:https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=16477544 | |
| 4 | 2023-02-04 22:09 | ancuanatuath ♦9 | Thank you for explaining | |
| 5 | 2023-02-04 22:46 | rskedgell | One positive of all this is that we should end up with better pedestrian routing and accessibility mapping across a fair-sized chunk of Hammersmith & Fulham, Brent and RBKC. It's a pity Waymap haven't engaged so far, as really I'd like to find out what they were trying to achieve ... | |
| 131181781 by rskedgell @ 2023-01-12 10:48 | 1 | 2023-01-13 18:04 | Paul Berry ♦134 | Resurveyed and fixme resolved on changeset #131240068. |
| 2 | 2023-01-14 00:16 | rskedgell | Thanks! | |
| 131204455 by rskedgell @ 2023-01-12 20:51 | 1 | 2023-01-12 23:01 | rskedgell | Oh joy, OSM Carto's maintainers seem unlikely to support highway=busway any time soon. Never mind, it was only approved in 2020.Changed back to highway=service inhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131207705 |
| 130953520 by rskedgell @ 2023-01-06 15:57 | 1 | 2023-01-06 15:58 | rskedgell | (to Friday Street junction, not to Cannon Street) |
| 130688542 by rskedgell @ 2022-12-30 14:05 | 1 | 2023-01-01 11:19 | mueschel ♦6,739 | Hi,"parking:both:permit" is not a defined tag according to the current street parking tagging scheme. Could you check the wiki for the correct ones?https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking |
| 2 | 2023-01-01 11:42 | rskedgell | The "correct" one is private. Unfortunately, real resident parking schemes in this area do not fit the description. Permits are readily available.Please could you check the talk page for street parking as well? | |
| 3 | 2023-01-03 10:43 | rskedgell | I have added a note to objects where I have used permit, explaining that it is undocumented and needs discussion, together with a link tohttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Street_parking | |
| 130703982 by rskedgell @ 2022-12-30 21:56 | 1 | 2022-12-31 12:26 | spiregrain ♦219 | Do these new area sidewalks ever show up in the default osm.org rendering? |
| 2 | 2022-12-31 13:34 | rskedgell | Unlikely in the near future, as other area:highway polygons don't get rendered in OSM Carto. Unfortunately, that results in the areas around some linear ways getting tagged for the renderer as e.g. highway=footway + area=yes, then some routers try to follow the perimeter. | |
| 130258597 by rskedgell @ 2022-12-19 17:51 | 1 | 2022-12-19 21:11 | Cebderby ♦313 | This part is clearly a shared ownership service way, see OS OpenMap Local and Cadastral layers in JOSM. It may have been allocated a USRN, but it is an OSM service way. |
| 2 | 2022-12-19 21:47 | rskedgell | Feel free to change the highway type back to service. I can't find out whether or not it is shared ownership or maintainable at public expense from any OSM-compatible source, so will happily follow OS Local's map style here. | |
| 3 | 2022-12-19 21:49 | rskedgell | Changed to service in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130264945 | |
| 129779299 by rskedgell @ 2022-12-06 11:30 | 1 | 2022-12-06 14:53 | spiregrain ♦219 | Your 10,000th edit! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129779299 |
| 2 | 2022-12-06 17:01 | rskedgell | I realised it was close to 10,000 changesets last weeks and made sure that #10000 was one which I could explain to non-mapping friends when I post about it on social media later, rather than a batch of UPRNs or USRNs :-) | |
| 3 | 2022-12-06 17:30 | spiregrain ♦219 | Always good to see reference numbers being added! I'm a fiend for postcodes and FHRS codes myself. But congrats! | |
| 129758161 by rskedgell @ 2022-12-05 21:39 | 1 | 2022-12-05 21:40 | rskedgell | Omitted OS Open Names from sources. |
| 129615406 by rskedgell @ 2022-12-01 18:30 | 1 | 2022-12-01 19:05 | rskedgell | Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons |
| 129616266 by rskedgell @ 2022-12-01 18:50 | 1 | 2022-12-01 19:04 | rskedgell | Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons |
| 129616488 by rskedgell @ 2022-12-01 18:55 | 1 | 2022-12-01 19:04 | rskedgell | Wrong source, actually: ONSUD;OS Open UPRN;Bing aerial imagery;OSMUK LR Polygons |
| 129285160 by rskedgell @ 2022-11-23 14:33 | 1 | 2022-11-23 14:35 | rskedgell | * Victoria Drive, not Road |
| 128936264 by rskedgell @ 2022-11-15 11:45 | 1 | 2022-11-15 14:37 | spiregrain ♦219 | How do you get to #156, then? is it through/under 154? |
| 2 | 2022-11-15 15:05 | rskedgell | It is. There's a letter box with the house number attached to the gate on the building passage through #154. | |
| 3 | 2022-11-15 15:09 | spiregrain ♦219 | Great, another one crossed-off! | |
| 126026032 by rskedgell @ 2022-09-10 18:21 | 1 | 2022-10-05 17:13 | mueschel ♦6,739 | Hi,please check this node, it got a strange 'Dragon' tag:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10013723953 |
| 123098878 by rskedgell @ 2022-07-01 19:38 | 1 | 2022-07-04 09:19 | spiregrain ♦219 | Hi there - would you say the lift gate you added (node 9861114674) is accessible to pedestrians and bikes? (I didn't notice a gate during my visit last week, but it looked like works were still underway).Ken |
| 2 | 2022-07-04 09:35 | rskedgell | Pedestrians, yes, so it should probably be something like foot=destination. Bikes could physically get round on the pavements, but I don't think I'd want to explicitly tag access for them. | |
| 120900248 by rskedgell @ 2022-05-12 17:48 | 1 | 2022-05-12 19:19 | spiregrain ♦219 | Bravo! |
| 2 | 2022-05-12 19:43 | rskedgell | To be honest, I'd forgotten they existed! I think all the QA tools try to match addr:street on a POI with the name of the nearest highway=*. Hopefully they'll catch up with parentStreet etc. (if they haven't already). | |
| 114196700 by rskedgell @ 2021-11-24 20:39 | 1 | 2021-11-25 13:21 | spiregrain ♦219 | This changeset swaps highway=footway to highway=cycleway for many ways. In some cases with foot access tagging, in others without. Was that the intent? Is there a source for this change - in-person and on the ground these ways feel more like footways open to bikes, than cycleways open to pedest... |
| 2 | 2021-11-26 10:11 | rskedgell | Last year someone changed the whole lot to footway due to a misguided idea about pedestrian priority (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89374914 ), so this is part of a gradual return to the status quo ante.In general, almost every path in QEOP appears to be a permissive shared cyclewa... | |
| 3 | 2021-11-26 10:40 | spiregrain ♦219 | Thanks for your response. I think you're right that my uneasiness stems from the fact that the default osm.org presentation doesn't distinguish cycleways that are unfriendly to pedestrians with those that are perfectly well shared. I always think it's a pity to see nice paths for s... | |
| 4 | 2021-11-26 13:04 | rskedgell | I can understand that, as I tend to map more pedestrian than cycling infrastructure. Something to render a dedicated cycle track would help, but we're hindered in the UK by almost never being able to truthfully tag a cycleway as foot=no. There doesn't really seem an appropriate value of cy... | |
| 5 | 2021-11-27 14:29 | spiregrain ♦219 | That tagging and taxonomy makes sense to me for 1) and 2). But what's the difference in real-life feature that distinguishes 1) from 3)? | |
| 112642513 by rskedgell @ 2021-10-18 08:59 | 1 | 2021-10-18 09:59 | rskedgell | Accidental upload of raw FHRS data for Gosport deleted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112644452 |
| 111327474 by rskedgell @ 2021-09-17 09:13 | 1 | 2021-09-18 20:28 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | Hello,Just checking - does the Capital Ring Link really extend along Church Street as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12662376 suggests? Previously https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bhE it just crossed the road?I'm not at all familiar with this bit of London, hence the question.Best Re... |
| 2 | 2021-09-18 20:45 | rskedgell | Hi Andy,I should have spotted that when I extended the footway. It definitely doesn't go up there - I've walked and run most of the Capital Ring.Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111389139 | |
| 3 | 2021-09-18 20:50 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | Great - thanks! | |
| 108764124 by rskedgell @ 2021-07-28 14:21 | 1 | 2021-07-31 06:58 | JeroenHoek ♦695 | Hello, you've used footway=separate (way 829265224 for example) in this changeset. You probably meant to use sidewalk=separate though. |
| 2 | 2021-07-31 12:18 | rskedgell | I meant to remove it entirely from the cycleways. Although it describes the relation of the segregated/separate footway, it's not much use when not documented as such and is consequently flagged by QA tools. | |
| 3 | 2021-07-31 12:32 | rskedgell | Removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108941585 | |
| 4 | 2021-07-31 12:47 | JeroenHoek ♦695 | Thanks. You can use sidewalk=separate instead though, if you wish to keep that data. | |
| 107721766 by rskedgell @ 2021-07-09 18:49 | 1 | 2021-07-09 18:53 | rskedgell | Fully reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107721817 |
| 102351252 by rskedgell @ 2021-04-05 18:06 | 1 | 2021-04-05 18:59 | rskedgell | Comment should refer to Loughton FP 25 |
| 100643238 by rskedgell @ 2021-03-08 14:05 | 1 | 2021-03-08 16:51 | spiregrain ♦219 | Hi Rob - if you care about naptan:verified tags, you *could* potentially tag all these as naptan:verified=yes, since you've been past add added the tactile paving data with StreetComplete. Over the weekend, I went back over my old StreetComplete bus stop changes, and set them to naptan:verif... |
| 2 | 2021-03-08 17:41 | rskedgell | Good idea. There are a some where I really ought to add notes with photographs where the position is a bit out as well. | |
| 3 | 2021-03-08 19:04 | spiregrain ♦219 | Bit of a thankless task... Though I was passing Maryland Station just now and found they have a printed OSM map on display, so it's all doing some good. | |
| 99824533 by rskedgell @ 2021-02-23 12:06 | 1 | 2021-02-23 13:19 | spiregrain ♦219 | It might be worth contacting Team Bolt about this one - see here - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activites/BoltI asked them what data they were using and got a good answer - it's traces from their drivers. But I didn't spot that they'd broken a relation h... |
| 2 | 2021-02-23 13:31 | rskedgell | I wondered if it was an organised edit from the #bolt and Bolt<nnn> usernames. This didn't break anything important, as I can't imagine anyone needing to use OSM to follow the bus or cycle routes affected here.However, if a junction in London is complex enough to remodel, it'... | |
| 98301740 by rskedgell @ 2021-01-28 14:07 | 1 | 2021-01-28 17:39 | spiregrain ♦219 | I always have to think quite hard about this one when it pops up on StreetComplete. Like you've done here, I say "No" if the ramp is mapped separately. |
| 2 | 2021-01-28 19:44 | rskedgell | Yes, it could be worded it little better in the app to give ramp=separate as a more obvious option when there are nearby short ways with highway=cycleway|footway + incline=* Updated in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98317186 | |
| 3 | 2021-01-31 17:16 | spiregrain ♦219 | I've added this one - https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2543 | |
| 97904800 by rskedgell @ 2021-01-21 12:20 | 1 | 2021-01-21 15:27 | spiregrain ♦219 | You're on fire this week! |
| 2 | 2021-01-21 16:05 | rskedgell | Thanks to a complaining foot preventing me from running, I've been doing a lot more local walking and StreetComplete, plus trying to clear up local notes and Osmose issues. It's a pity the notes in Chobham Manor are anonymous, as being able to communicate would have been quite useful. | |
| 3 | 2021-01-21 16:32 | spiregrain ♦219 | Chobham Manor guy is very chatty and determined. Potentially a good recruit, but I doubt he/she can even see responses to notes - certainly without an account there will be no notification. | |
| 95757754 by rskedgell @ 2020-12-13 14:47 | 1 | 2020-12-13 16:54 | spiregrain ♦219 | Are you sure this carpark is underground? Most of the east village car parks (esp. the athlete's village conversations) are ground floor, with the the gardens on their roofs.--- |
| 2 | 2020-12-13 16:59 | rskedgell | Good point. There doesn't really seem to be a common value for the parking tag which covers it, but I'll remove underground. | |
| 3 | 2020-12-13 17:02 | spiregrain ♦219 | They have the vibe of a multistorey, but with only one storey! | |
| 94763745 by rskedgell @ 2020-11-25 09:55 | 1 | 2020-11-25 11:32 | spiregrain ♦219 | Bravo great stuff. Just wanted to check - is "Crataegus unk species" a valid haw species or a typo? It's on n8163965734 at least. |
| 2 | 2020-11-25 11:47 | rskedgell | No, that's definitely something I should have checked before copying. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94771645 | |
| 88574426 by rskedgell @ 2020-07-27 15:41 | 1 | 2020-08-24 22:26 | peregrination ♦23 | Should the VeloPark and the BMX track also be removed from the park itself, aka reducing the park area? |
| 88372000 by rskedgell @ 2020-07-22 23:44 | 1 | 2020-08-02 07:38 | Mike Baggaley ♦630 | Hi, on way 172192553, can you clarify whether the refs 453 and S115 are bridge refs (in which case they should be in bridge:ref) or right of way refs (in which case they should be in prow_ref), and why there are 2 refs?Thanks,Mike |
| 2 | 2020-08-02 15:11 | rskedgell | Hi Mike,453 appears to be CRT's bridge reference, so I've moved it to bridge:ref. S115 appears to be a Lea Valley Regional Park ref (presumably for the bridge structure), which I have left in the ref tag.It's very unlikely to be a PROW ref, as this is a recently reopened permi... | |
| 88842618 by rskedgell @ 2020-08-02 15:01 | 1 | 2020-08-02 15:01 | rskedgell | Waterden Road, not Carpenters Road. |
| 88092997 by rskedgell @ 2020-07-16 14:24 | 1 | 2020-07-18 16:11 | spiregrain ♦219 | Hi - Something has gone badly wrong with the shape - the painstakingly 3d-ifyd shape of the Moxy Hotel, Unite Students and Legacy Tower. I think this changeset has something to do with it please please have a look and consider reverting. Changeset 88094856 also relevant? The buildings involved... |
| 2 | 2020-07-18 16:56 | spiregrain ♦219 | OK, tried it myself, with changeset 88181456 . I don't think I've borken anything you were working on here. Learned a lot about JOSM in the process! | |
| 3 | 2020-07-19 09:15 | rskedgell | PLease accept my apologies for this. It's very odd, I wasn't trying to edit anything around Startford town centre and I have no idea quite how I managed to do it. I think the best thing for me to do here would be for me to fully revert 88181456, 88094856 and 88094856 to ensure that your 3D... | |
| 4 | 2020-07-19 10:36 | spiregrain ♦219 | It's all sorted now - I was able to revert those two changesets, and then ONLY upload the Stratford nodes and objects. So phew! The changes you where trying to do should all be intact too.The complex part was figuring out which changesets caused the problem. It turns our object hi... | |
| 5 | 2020-07-19 10:43 | spiregrain ♦219 | In case it helps you figure out what went wrong - it looked like some of the building:parts got reduced to lines... as if all their nodes were selected, and then the 'L' key was hit to make them all conform to a straight line. In a few other cases groups of nodes got snapped together. | |
| 6 | 2020-07-19 11:14 | rskedgell | Thanks! I'm still perplexed as to how I managed to select nodes so far off-screen from where I was editing. I should probably restart JOSM and reload a more localised area of the map more often. | |
| 84937432 by rskedgell @ 2020-05-09 13:08 | 1 | 2020-05-09 13:11 | rskedgell | Missing source URLhttps://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3558345 |
| 84892792 by rskedgell @ 2020-05-08 11:58 | 1 | 2020-05-08 17:01 | spiregrain ♦219 | I think it's a pity there's no widely-used OSM tag of that expoxy'd(?) gravel onto asphalt stuff. I think the trade call it pea-grit. There's acres of it at QEOP! --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84892792 ... |
| 2 | 2020-05-08 17:55 | rskedgell | It's only as the surface dressing has worn down that it's become obvious that it's asphalt, rather than a well-maintained compacted surface.The term pea grit/pea shingle was something which caught out a friend and I at Peacehaven parkrun last summer. That term in the course descri... | |
| 84848132 by rskedgell @ 2020-05-07 18:34 | 1 | 2020-05-07 21:31 | spiregrain ♦219 | Hah - I wonder if we surveyed Gurney Road and Buxton Road simultaneously. (I was just doing a driveby building:levels with StreetComplete at about 1800) --- Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84848132 |
| 2 | 2020-05-08 09:57 | rskedgell | I was there around 1400, so I missed you by a few hours. I'm afraid I left a couple of buildings in Hatfield Road slightly askew, but have fixed this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84883553Incidentally, I'm using the NLS OS 1:1250/1:2500 1944-1967 as the most reliable align... | |
| 82316615 by rskedgell @ 2020-03-17 19:46 | 1 | 2020-03-17 20:01 | rskedgell | Test edit with healthsites.io, which:- used an address supplied via the website to add addr:full=*, but also deleted all other addr:*=* tags without warning- added undocumented operational_status=* tag- deleted building:part=* tag- deleted contact:website=* tag- deleted level=*- deleted ... |
| 80039786 by rskedgell @ 2020-01-24 14:50 | 1 | 2020-02-01 14:58 | rskedgell | Updated in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80412147 |
| 77535870 by rskedgell @ 2019-11-25 17:03 | 1 | 2019-12-15 01:56 | SomeoneElse ♦13,561 | To be honest, the original version of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4617489789/history looks like a personal bookmark added by a MAPS.ME user. |
| 2 | 2019-12-15 18:20 | rskedgell | It wouldn't surprise me. I'm planning to make another trip over to Feltham quite soon, mostly to shoot Mapillary images, but I'll try to visit the loci of as many notes as I can. | |
| 78037093 by rskedgell @ 2019-12-06 09:02 | 1 | 2019-12-06 09:15 | Slowboydickie ♦1 | Thanks for the comments. The routing software is Komoot. Komoot will not accept routes in a southerly direction on that footpath. Inspection of OSM showed an arrow on the footpath in a northerly direction. |
| 2 | 2019-12-06 09:41 | rskedgell | I've had a little play with Komoot and I *think* it may be taking the scenic route because of the access=private tag on Yew Tree Road. I've added a note ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2017947 ). If it hasn't been resolved by the next time I do Mole Valley parkrun, I'll take... | |
| 3 | 2019-12-06 09:51 | Slowboydickie ♦1 | I will be going for a run today so I can take some photos. What in particular would you like? | |
| 4 | 2019-12-06 11:43 | rskedgell | That's great, thanks!If there's any public footpath signage on Yew Tree Road, particularly at its junction with Ashcombe Road, then foot=designated could probably be added to that section.If you're local and there isn't any signage, but it is the route walkers "alway... | |
| 76738835 by rskedgell @ 2019-11-07 07:59 | 1 | 2019-11-07 11:26 | spiregrain ♦219 | Thanks for doing these thankless tasks. |
| 76003381 by rskedgell @ 2019-10-21 14:35 | 1 | 2019-10-21 18:16 | spiregrain ♦219 | Do you know what these offices are? From memory, there is very little outward sign of them. |
| 2 | 2019-10-21 18:31 | rskedgell | It's hard to tell, so while adding a top level tag keeps Osmose happy, they may be good candidates for deletion. A web search for CISS brings up an email address which matches the name of a former director of a company at that address, so they probably were relevant when first mapped. The origi... | |
| 3 | 2019-10-23 07:41 | spiregrain ♦219 | That matches my memory precisely. I may have to walk down that spur of Carolina Close at some point; not this week though. | |
| 73313570 by rskedgell @ 2019-08-13 15:06 | 1 | 2019-08-14 13:42 | highflyer74 ♦2,451 | Hello there!I stumbled across your change as you introduced a new key to OSM. Looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/713422510, wouldn't it be sensible to use the usual website=* or contact:website=* tags? With the current tagging nobody will be able to use the data.All the best f... |
| 2 | 2019-08-14 13:46 | highflyer74 ♦2,451 | PS same applies to heritage_operator=*. The usual operator=* would fit. | |
| 3 | 2019-08-14 14:51 | rskedgell | Thank you for spotting that, he:operator=* should have been heritage:operator=*Assuming that you have read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage why do you think that operator=* would be more appropriate? Historic England (he) do not operate the site, they are the statutory body respo... | |
| 4 | 2019-08-14 17:27 | highflyer74 ♦2,451 | Hi there! Thanks for your quick reply. Actually heritage:operator=* did not come to my mind, but you are right. It just popped up in one of the QA tools I use, but that of course was due to the typo. Thanks for fixing it! | |
| 65578872 by rskedgell @ 2018-12-18 12:01 | 1 | 2018-12-18 14:16 | spiregrain ♦219 | Hi there. I used to work on the Athletes Vilalge/East Village site during the refurbishment process. (In 2013/14). In those days the northern boundary of the East Village was Honour Lea Avenue. The Chobham Manor stuff definitely counted as a separate development, which opened quite a lot late... |
| 2 | 2018-12-18 15:22 | rskedgell | I've always thought of Chobham Manor as separate too, but didn't really want to touch the geometry of the place=neighbourhood way, just remove the landuse tag. It's probably worth splitting into separate neighbourhoods and perhaps adding others for the other residential developments a... | |
| 3 | 2018-12-20 15:50 | rskedgell | Chobham Manor (bounded by Abercrombie Road, Temple Mills Lane, Honour Lea Avenue and Olympic Park Avenue) has now been split into a separate place=neighbourhood area from East Village. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65637464 | |
| 4 | 2018-12-20 16:18 | spiregrain ♦219 | Thanks Rob - that matches my mental model of the places. I had a quick look at the Newham planning portal map earlier, and they only seem to have Keirin Road from all the Chobham Manor roads. (Naturally, the LLDC planning portal doesn't have maps). So another win for OSM! | |
| 62679253 by rskedgell @ 2018-09-17 22:42 | 1 | 2018-09-20 19:51 | robert ♦234 | Did you mean to delete "Wilton Place" in this changeset? It broke a match with OS Locator: https://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=924521 |
| 2 | 2018-09-20 20:18 | rskedgell | No, I certainly did not mean to do that, presumably a rather careless fat finger error. Undeleted in changeset #62776397 | |
| 44811485 by rskedgell @ 2016-12-31 17:53 | 1 | 2018-09-15 22:33 | DaveF ♦1,590 | HiYou've added "dontimport:fhrs:" tagshttp://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BUT. What Is its purpose? To check, are you aware of the discussions on Talk-GB where it was agreed that only fhrs:id & address data was to be added? Transient info, such as rating, rating date would result in un... |
| 2 | 2018-09-16 09:08 | rskedgell | Yes, I'm aware of that, the transient tags fhrs:rating and fhrs:inspectiondate have been removed from the 2 nodes in the changeset where they were included in error (4583062983 and 4583062985). Thanks for pointing this out. | |
| 62576369 by rskedgell @ 2018-09-14 09:05 | 1 | 2018-09-14 11:06 | spiregrain ♦219 | Great stuff, many thanks. |
| 2 | 2018-09-14 11:10 | rskedgell | Thanks! - Although it was @yourealwaysbe who did the hard work of actually mapping the stores, I just used the FHRS tool to add metadata :-) | |
| 3 | 2018-09-14 11:12 | spiregrain ♦219 | I leaned in and thanked @your too! Honest! :) | |
| 60034482 by rskedgell @ 2018-06-21 08:08 | 1 | 2018-06-21 12:03 | spiregrain ♦219 | All of 5 Endeavour Square still seems to be inside a Construction Area. (Way: The International Quarter (South) (304288723)) Presumably , that can be split or reduced to cover only the bit north of 'Stratford Walk'? |
| 59372855 by rskedgell @ 2018-05-29 16:17 | 1 | 2018-06-05 16:08 | spiregrain ♦219 | Hi - this is supported by the Newham planning portal... E.g. their map shows the location of 186 Henniker Road as being west of Major Road. https://pa.newham.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=000VH2JYLI000(You can use the map tab, but you'll n... |
| 2 | 2018-06-05 16:52 | rskedgell | Thanks. I preferred to rely on what I could see on the ground, but it's reassuring that LB Newham's records agree. | |
| 45862844 by rskedgell @ 2017-02-06 18:24 | 1 | 2017-02-08 12:01 | mueschel ♦6,739 | Hi,in the last weeks I found this tag rather often:he:inscription_dateI think it should beheritage:inscription_dateCould it be a copy and paste problem?Cheers, Jan |
| 2 | 2017-02-08 15:31 | rskedgell | The "Tags to use in combination" table in the wiki article for the key heritage at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage#Tags_to_use_in_combination has:heritage:operator=*\txxx\tsee table under abbreviationandxxx:inscription_date=*\t\tDate when the object was added to the ... | |
| 3 | 2017-02-08 15:32 | mueschel ♦6,739 | For the records:http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45431514he:inscription_date is correct. | |
| 4 | 2017-02-08 15:52 | rskedgell | Thanks - it's perhaps not the most obvious tagging scheme and probably did look a lot like a typo. |