| Country | Changeset | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
 | 171942127 (Comments: 1) | Bubble Epic (Discussed changesets: 8) | DWG revert - sockpuppet vandalism https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171942338 commented 2025-09-15 02:18:41 UTC by Fizzie-DWG ♦32,254 |
| 166124886 (Comments: 1) | ZenPhil (Discussed changesets: 25) | Hi, was ref=TQ 3133 8823 actually signed on this substation? I removed it because I thought it was incorrect to have a grid reference set as the ref, but there seems to be several substations tagged like this in London and Southend, so if it was wron... commented 2025-09-15 00:28:36 UTC by LordGarySugar ♦87 |
| 171906766 (Comments: 1) | no details provided here (Discussed changesets: 16) | Hi, Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1429686756 really a building? It does not look like one on bing and others. commented 2025-09-15 00:02:48 UTC by Hufkratzer ♦801 |
| 147223485 (Comments: 4) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | @NTAshridgeEstatePaths Please do reply to these changeset comments. When I submit this comment you will get sent an email you will get sent a link to this changeset. Click through that and you can comment yourself (write a comment in the box and cl... commented 2025-09-14 23:55:41 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 148160630 (Comments: 3) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello, You've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1215964867 (see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bEM ) here. Although it's in the trees, it is still somewhat visible in imagery, so if you want to prevent anyone re-adding it I strong... commented 2025-09-14 23:47:35 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 171412997 (Comments: 3) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello, You'd deleted the tracks / footpaths here and I've restored them, because your deletion may cause someone to re-add it from imagery (where it is clearly visible), and if they do that they will not add access tags. I have added ... commented 2025-09-14 23:38:10 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 167225787 (Comments: 3) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello, You'd deleted the private track here (which was tagged as a private track). I've restored the private track because your deletion may cause someone to re-add it from imagery (where it is clearly visible), and if they do that they... commented 2025-09-14 23:33:22 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 167225932 (Comments: 3) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Like https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171412889 this also deleted a public right of way. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/51.77428/-0.53272/H/P shows that. If it genuinely has been rerouted or closed by the local authori... commented 2025-09-14 23:30:29 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 171412889 (Comments: 4) | NTAshridgeEstatePaths (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello NTAshridgeEstatePaths, As some people have already said, you'd deleted a number of public rights of way. The one here can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/51.8328/-0.6079/O/P (the green overlays on that map ... commented 2025-09-14 23:26:30 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 171409267 (Comments: 4) | The Vyne (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello "The Vyne", and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I wonder if there's been a bit of a miscommunication about "permissive access" here? Something that the general public have a legal right to access (e.g. a public footpath) ... commented 2025-09-14 22:34:32 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 171934701 (Comments: 1) | SomeoneElse2 (Discussed changesets: 61) | Yes it has! commented 2025-09-14 19:56:55 UTC by SomeoneElse2 ♦460 |
| 171922553 (Comments: 1) | isJambo (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The pub is already mapped as an outline of the premises, Way: The Regal (1204234283). I've removed the POI as it's duplication of data. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-14 17:07:02 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 171924507 (Comments: 1) | Nottingham Tree Surgeons (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM! Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and fo... commented 2025-09-14 15:42:40 UTC by NeisBot ♦2,630 |
| 171714861 (Comments: 1) | Black Tusk (Discussed changesets: 3) | Hi, you added a 'road number' tag here - shouldn't that be 'ref'? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1391144697 commented 2025-09-14 10:14:14 UTC by mueschel ♦6,658 |
| 171892837 (Comments: 2) | Karen Anne Hinchliffe (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, I'm not sure how to do that? I saw an option to delete and used that. I'll have another go although I'm surprised that someone would add it again? Thank you for your advice. commented 2025-09-14 09:38:33 UTC by Karen Anne Hinchliffe ♦1 |
| 171871847 (Comments: 2) | Paul Berry (Discussed changesets: 51) | No problem at all. commented 2025-09-14 08:53:24 UTC by Paul Berry ♦126 |
| 171887991 (Comments: 1) | CH'97 (Discussed changesets: 1) | (Review requested) Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for resolving the note and updating the map. The only suggestion I would make is that you replace the current access=no tag (no access for any transport mode) with foot=private and ... commented 2025-09-14 08:50:29 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,601 |
| 171893479 (Comments: 1) | Graham_Johnson (Discussed changesets: 4) | (Review requested) The outline of the path looks fine, as it's from your own GPX file. However you probably don't need to add an access=no tag here. If horses and bicycles are prohibited and it's pedestrian only, you coul... commented 2025-09-14 08:21:52 UTC by rskedgell ♦1,601 |
| 171884761 (Comments: 1) | RobChafer (Discussed changesets: 7) | Hi, You inadvertently squared up the long boundary line Way: 449518772. I've reinstated it to the original position so all is well. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-14 06:41:31 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 156767409 (Comments: 1) | TonyS999 (Discussed changesets: 12) | Hi, was adding not:brand:wikidata=Q922344 (i.e. not Morrisons) to the petrol station named Morrisons an error, or is this actually not a Morrisons petrol station? commented 2025-09-13 20:15:53 UTC by LordGarySugar ♦87 |
| 171751800 (Comments: 3) | DankJae (Discussed changesets: 11) | amended [https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171880332] commented 2025-09-13 15:09:42 UTC by DankJae ♦18 |
| 171860661 (Comments: 1) | Ted Pottage (Discussed changesets: 12) | Access visit by #SurreyCoalition staff and members commented 2025-09-13 06:58:52 UTC by Ted Pottage ♦24 |
| 171788026 (Comments: 1) | ruarimac24 (Discussed changesets: 2) | Hi, I just wanted to point out, in case you missed it, that there are several problems in this changeset as noted in the warnings above. I've removed several sections of duplicated cycleway which could have impacted on routing. I've not loo... commented 2025-09-13 06:16:57 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 171799415 (Comments: 4) | DocDirk (Discussed changesets: 4) | There's no need for bicycle=no as highway=footway auto negates bicycles commented 2025-09-12 18:54:47 UTC by DaveF ♦1,579 |
| 145813242 (Comments: 4) | JamJar II (Discussed changesets: 20) | Ha - so it does (I didn't spot that). I'd just remove the "footway=sidewalk" altogether. commented 2025-09-12 15:48:14 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 171834477 (Comments: 1) | SomeoneElse (Discussed changesets: 450) | The ridiculously large bounding box is because the TPEP is drawn as one way: osm.org/way/94759467 . Actual edit was along the road at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/70947577#map=15/54.17595/-1.81546&layers=H commented 2025-09-12 14:07:36 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 171803156 (Comments: 1) | londonmatt (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, The church building is alreaddy mapped so I've added you new tags to it. OSM policy is "One feature, one OSM element", please see:- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-12 05:19:11 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 171795177 (Comments: 1) | DaveEnglishTeacher (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. OSM maps ground truth, what is physically present at a place, and it must be verifiable to others who pass by. So I wonder, is there actually a language school here or is it an office in the bungalow? I can see ... commented 2025-09-12 05:02:09 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 171807266 (Comments: 1) | alexswilliams (Discussed changesets: 2) | Accidentally put two changes into one changeset. The original change that has had its source/description lost is: - Add further detail to Buxton McDonalds; sourced from a survey 2025-09-11, and gpx traces from my etrex uploaded to osm. commented 2025-09-12 01:25:02 UTC by alexswilliams ♦2 |
| 171807987 (Comments: 1) | SomeoneElse (Discussed changesets: 450) | The ridiculously large bounding box is because the TPEP is drawn as one way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/94759467 . Actual edit was along the trail at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3878675#map=13/54.17067/-1.78562&layers=H . commented 2025-09-12 01:22:03 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 166546525 (Comments: 4) | LordGarySugar (Discussed changesets: 18) | I have a very strong opinion that a clear corridor or embankment isn't grounds for a closed railway to be present in OSM, but that's a discussion for another time :) I went ahead and added building=train_station and abandoned=yes to ... commented 2025-09-12 01:16:13 UTC by LordGarySugar ♦87 |
| 171803940 (Comments: 1) | Paul Flo Williams (Discussed changesets: 3) | Thanks commented 2025-09-11 22:07:06 UTC by UtterClutter ♦25 |
| 171803044 (Comments: 3) | Paul Flo Williams (Discussed changesets: 3) | You can also see UPRNs for buildings that no longer exist, so you have to be careful to avoid these. For example, in Peacehaven, plenty of single houses on a plot have been demolished and two put in its place. The UPRN tool may well show 3 UPRNs in t... commented 2025-09-11 21:38:43 UTC by Paul Flo Williams ♦2 |
| 1 (Comments: 53) | Steve (Discussed changesets: 4) | suppp commented 2025-09-11 20:00:28 UTC by notmyproblem1 ♦76 |
| 153581430 (Comments: 3) | Paul Berry (Discussed changesets: 51) | Great, thanks commented 2025-09-11 19:05:49 UTC by eteb3 ♦123 |
| 171457594 (Comments: 2) | Pete Owens (Discussed changesets: 105) | Resolved in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171791746 I see, thanks for that commented 2025-09-11 17:20:47 UTC by gurglypipe ♦915 |
| 171536827 (Comments: 1) | AED123 (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi there AED123, In this changeset and two others just before it, you appear to have added three different AEDs all within a few metres of each other: * https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13123190301 * https://www.openstreetmap.org/n... commented 2025-09-11 15:10:52 UTC by Robert Whittaker ♦285 |
| 168416999 (Comments: 1) | Hansiepanzie (Discussed changesets: 3) | I think you might have broken this track (that was): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93572903/history commented 2025-09-11 14:27:54 UTC by EdLoach ♦172 |
| 171775256 (Comments: 3) | mueschel (Discussed changesets: 872) | I'm familiar with JOSM, but less so with Level0. I have used it for one of my favourite changesets - The move of a statue from Euston Station to up near Middlesborough. With Level0 I could just punch in the ICBM coordinates. commented 2025-09-11 13:54:26 UTC by spiregrain ♦207 |
| 171780268 (Comments: 1) | ThePigeonCompany15 (Discussed changesets: 1) | What on earth is this changeset comment all about? commented 2025-09-11 12:22:24 UTC by GinaroZ ♦1,283 |
| 171755352 (Comments: 4) | 小智智 (Discussed changesets: 68) | I also did the same to some other stations, such as Tottenham Court Road, a while ago. Those I left separate are those where there is a clear boundary on the ground between areas of responsibility, where the parts can be operated separately, ... commented 2025-09-11 10:58:42 UTC by 小智智 ♦54 |
| 171771732 (Comments: 1) | Troy Asset Management (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The business doesn't occupy the whole building, so I've reverted the building tags. I added the tag office=financial to your POI. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-11 09:58:07 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 171126371 (Comments: 3) | Pete Owens (Discussed changesets: 105) | Right, thanks for surveying. The fact that the church access road was previously 5mph would surely mean that (a) it’s a private road (I don’t believe 5mph speed limits exist or are valid on any public road) and (b) if the 5mph sig... commented 2025-09-11 08:33:13 UTC by gurglypipe ♦915 |
| 171757952 (Comments: 1) | jhmapo (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Good start to your mapping, that's actually two houses, I've amended. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-11 04:57:13 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 171413805 (Comments: 3) | AH9999 (Discussed changesets: 6) | Hello Phil from the DWG here. What sources did you use to double check? commented 2025-09-10 22:28:33 UTC by trigpoint ♦2,388 |
| 171108252 (Comments: 6) | UtterClutter (Discussed changesets: 24) | Often, F5 simply doesn't cut it. With Brave, I use CTRL+Shift+R commented 2025-09-10 20:45:52 UTC by UtterClutter ♦25 |
| 146938314 (Comments: 2) | Rublistoi (Discussed changesets: 10) | Hi, you seem to be correct, it maches Royal Mail adress finder. commented 2025-09-10 20:35:26 UTC by Rublistoi ♦2 |
| 171672637 (Comments: 2) | trigpoint (Discussed changesets: 71) | Yes, a typo, adjacent keys. Fixed. Thank you commented 2025-09-10 18:48:02 UTC by trigpoint ♦2,388 |
| 171728765 (Comments: 3) | Mildtrashpanda (Discussed changesets: 1) | The alignment on the second load of houses you added looks fine. Basically you need to align property boundaries to the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels overlay, as that’s a source of ground truth about alignment. The aerial imagery can be offset by up ... commented 2025-09-10 14:34:00 UTC by gurglypipe ♦915 |
| 163479782 (Comments: 2) | 35bf6131de (Discussed changesets: 1) | Actually, I'm not sure where the bookshop PoI came from—I was only trying to add the New Theatre https://newtheatre-peterborough.com/ commented 2025-09-10 14:19:13 UTC by 35bf6131de ♦1 |
| 133307414 (Comments: 1) | eddie28 (Discussed changesets: 3) | Changeset: 133307414 done 2023-03-04 commented 2025-09-10 10:07:50 UTC by sloerunner ♦7 |
| 170915553 (Comments: 3) | smsm1 (Discussed changesets: 9) | Np I don't user every door, so... I try to do better with https://mapcomplete.org commented 2025-09-10 09:47:21 UTC by Pieter Vander Vennet ♦450 |
| 170211374 (Comments: 8) | joachim-n (Discussed changesets: 6) | Ok. We still have the name on the footpath I've added as a way. One other thing that bothers me is that only some of the benches & flower beds show on the standard render -- the pedestrian area seems to be obscuring some of them, but only... commented 2025-09-10 09:21:40 UTC by joachim-n ♦5 |
| 171717071 (Comments: 1) | Paul Flo Williams (Discussed changesets: 3) | The house previously marked a house as 30 Downsway is actually 571 Falmer Road. I have corrected this. commented 2025-09-10 07:16:36 UTC by UtterClutter ♦25 |
| 171713040 (Comments: 1) | jnbn05 (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I made several alterations to your added footpaths mainly to conform to OSM best practice. There were many crossing but unjoined highways, (footpaths crossing over existing highways unjoined), all fixed. Many plac... commented 2025-09-10 06:26:19 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 167259600 (Comments: 3) | AH9999 (Discussed changesets: 6) | Unfortunately, we can't use Google Streetview for licensing reasons (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google ), and any data added as a result of that will need to be reverted and redacted. Was that the source that you used for the chang... commented 2025-09-09 18:29:06 UTC by SomeoneElse ♦13,434 |
| 168343410 (Comments: 1) | NewtonmoreCup (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, I was wondering why the brand:wikidata tag has now been prefixed with not: The value is correct for the brand. Adrian commented 2025-09-09 17:28:49 UTC by Adrian Shobrooke ♦10 |
| 168894970 (Comments: 3) | philipcullen (Discussed changesets: 20) | Sorry Phil, I'd misread the changeset! Apologies for the confusion. commented 2025-09-09 15:42:38 UTC by leocassarani ♦2 |
| 171596773 (Comments: 2) | UtterClutter (Discussed changesets: 24) | See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abbreviations commented 2025-09-09 14:05:14 UTC by UtterClutter ♦25 |
| 170613395 (Comments: 3) | jonnymccullagh (Discussed changesets: 18) | I checked this site again on Friday. The whole block is leveled. commented 2025-09-09 13:24:43 UTC by jonnymccullagh ♦12 |
| 171665342 (Comments: 1) | CandyK NK (Discussed changesets: 1) | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I think you made this amendment at the wrong place, so I've reverted it. Regards Bernard. commented 2025-09-09 07:37:57 UTC by BCNorwich ♦4,915 |
| 171668713 (Comments: 1) | TouringTest (Discussed changesets: 2) | thanks! I have not edited it as I lack any local knowledge at all of that area commented 2025-09-09 07:24:34 UTC by Mateusz Konieczny ♦8,012 |
| 171562119 (Comments: 2) | KindredCoda (Discussed changesets: 18) | Yes, I will rectify this issue. -Coda commented 2025-09-08 21:34:04 UTC by KindredCoda ♦9 |
| 171498663 (Comments: 1) | eixuein (Discussed changesets: 2) | Hey, that's exactly what the tunnel=building_passage is for. Well done commented 2025-09-08 09:42:35 UTC by dzidek23 ♦61 |