| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5421566 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 14 days ago | opened | hadw ♦531 | These pitches are seasonal. I think the exact location varies from year to year, and there certainly aren't two cricket pitches overlapping at the same time. They are replaced by football pitches in the Winter season. |
| 2 | ~ 14 days ago | closed | LordGarySugar ♦2,173 | tagged as seasonal=yes and added a football pitch that was visible | |
| 3 | ~ 12 days ago | reopened | hadw ♦531 | ||
| 4 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | There are several discrepancies between what is mapped here and the council's new map of the park. I can't use that as a source, as there is no copyright release on it. However what is mapped for the cricket is three wicket areas, which are rectangular. One is artificial, and a single wicket. The others are rectangular, because the actual wicket will move throughout the season, and the boundary will move with it. There seems to be another one, at the moment, which has no official existence, and I noticed the teams brought their own boundary marking paint. In general, I feel that these pitches are over mapped. They would need very active maintenance to provide reliable information. | |
| 5421562 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 14 days ago | opened | hadw ♦531 | This is not a building called "Halls of Residence"! It probably needs a more specific tagging than residential. |
| 2 | ~ 14 days ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | I've fixed the original problem with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186484649 However, there is also an issue that there is a public Costa franchise on part of the ground floor, opening to outside of the university, so the amenity tag probably should be mapped to a subset of the building. Note there are dormitories above the cafe. This is not the only "name is only the name" violation on the campus, but others are difficult to positively verify from the outside. | |
| 3 | ~ 14 days ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | It looks like it does have a name, which is not "Halls of Residence", but I don't have sufficient access to search for an on the ground source for the name, and I don't want to work out the admissibility of https://www.westminster.ac.uk/study/accommodation/harrow-hall as a source. | |
| 3590073 | 1 | ~ 3 years ago | opened | rskedgell ♦2,614 | Unmapped footpath "towards Normal Road" via StreetComplete 51.1 Attached photo(s): https://westnordost.de/p/135910.jpg |
| 2 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | rskedgell ♦2,614 | Part of footpath added, remainder needs GPS survey. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133518204 | |
| 3 | ~ 14 days ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | It's NorVal Road, not NorMal Road, and, if I remember the topology correctly, it ends up joining https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1530198596 although I thought it went across a bridge, so I'd need to check on the orientation of the bridge. I probably have four or five GPX traces of it, from a walking group, which I'll try to remember to dig out. | |
| 415983 | 1 | ~ 10 years ago | opened | hadw ♦531 | I saw no sign of an abandoned railway here. On the other hand, it looks to me as though the way representing that abandoned railway more accurately show the track of most of the Belmont Trail than the official line for trail. I think the railway needs to be relegated to the open historic map, but, subject to a more careful survey, most of the Belmont trail needs re-aligning to be on top of the original course of the railway. (I accept that this used to be a railway, but the rule is to map what is on the ground, and that railway is no longer on the ground.) |
| 2 | ~ 10 years ago | commented | trigpoint ♦6,863 | It is still useful information , it tells a.walker/cyclist a lot about the path such as it will be level. More importantly, should it be a cycleway? | |
| 3 | ~ 10 years ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | It is not currently rendered on the standard map. I'd suggest the information is probably better handled by a note or description tag. If it were possible to verify that it does actually follow the centre line of the railway, even a source tag could be given, except that there is no source given for the abandoned railway, so there is no reason to believe that is reliable. The note to the north east answers some of your other point. North of Kenton Lane, with exception of the car park, there is no doubt that it is a cycleway, as it is wide and gravelled, but the whole trail is signposted with cycle symbols, even though the section t the south is just a narrow track often only wide enough for one person at a time. I need to read up on the exact definition of a cycle path, to decide whether the dirt track is a cycle, or something else just with bicycle=designated. Unfortunately, when I cycled it yesterday, it was on the spur of the moment and I didn't think of turning on a GPS track and hadn't taken a recent look at the existing mapping. Also the vegetation cover makes it difficult to get an accurate GPS or aerial imagery trace of it. My main reasons for assuming that it exactly coincides with the old railway course are: - no railway physically present, so that is the obvious place to put the path; - in the few places where it is visible in the aerial imagery, the "railway" way better matches the imagery than the trail way; - I remember the path to have more blind bends than would be implied by the current course, and "railway" seems to have ones that are consistent with my memory. Incidentally, I didn't mention before that, where it zig-zags, to the south of the car park, there is actually a set of steps that by-passes the the ramp. Also it doesn't join up with ends of any intermediate roads, so taking that into account and looking at the aerial imagery, I would say there is a section of footpath or cycleway between the end of Dobbin Close and the main line of the trail. | |
| 4 | ~ 10 years ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | To complete the brain dump, the last 100-200m at the north end look like an ordinary pedestrian alley, rather than part of the trail. I couldn't find any signage relating to bicycle usage for that part. As I remember it, it is generally level, but it looks to me that it has been banked up in the car park area, hence the steps and ramp, so the original railway gradient would be 100% reliable. The bit to the south of the road is two narrow and has too much low vegetation to go fast, at least on ones first use, so I'm not sure I would have noticed a slope. | |
| 5 | ~ 26 days ago | closed | LordGarySugar ♦2,173 | I have removed the abandoned:railway=rail geometry here as it has been built over/ replaced with the cycleway (which I have tagged railtrail=yes) | |
| 6 | ~ 26 days ago | reopened | hadw ♦531 | ||
| 7 | ~ 26 days ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | I have since come to a better appreciation of this feature and I'm afraid I would rescind my original opinions on this. The actual railway course tends to parallel the cycle track and in many/most places, it is not under the cycle track. There are also some features other than cuttings, that are still present, if you know where to look. In particular the platforms at Belmont Station, the three quarter mile marker, and. although recently obscured by felled trees, a gradient marker. I'd suggest turning up, at Harrow and Wealdstone Station, at 14:30 on the second Saturday in the month, during BST, prepared for a three mile hike, to learn more about this, before assuming that there is no trace. | |
| 8 | ~ 26 days ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | A couple of points to note are that the the hiking track is much narrower than the actual railway corridor, and the line of the railway is much smoother (and is mainly to the West of the hiking track. | |
| 9 | ~ 4 days ago | commented | LordGarySugar ♦2,173 | I've mapped it on OpenHistoricalMap (you can see that here: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/#map=15/51.60171/-0.31672&layers=R&date=1950-01-01&daterange=1950-01-01,2026-12-31). As the railway has been replaced by a cycle trail in places or built over in others, there's no point having it mapped in OSM. If there are disused signals or mile markers to be seen they can of course be mapped, but the track has definitely been removed & is beyond the scope of OSM. From what I saw online, the former platforms at Belmont have been filled in and covered over to create the car park that is there now, so I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say they are visible. If you have any information to the contrary that would be interesting to see. | |
| 308045 | 1 | ~ 11 years ago | opened | Vaxe | South Harrow Market present here. (Follows rails up to a point) |
| 2 | ~ 11 years ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | It's quite complex, too, as there are multiple places where you can cross between the two sides of the track! | |
| 3 | ~ 11 years ago | commented | Vaxe | I added a basic way and a connected service road but the job is certainly unfinished as the paths between the two sides of the track have not yet been mapped, not the shops and services. Getting GPS data is essentially impossible (due to the overhead cover) so estimates might have to do... at least for now. The individual shops and such may be even more difficult to map. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | ceirios ♦3,793 | looks like this is named as such | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | hadw ♦531 | ||
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | See the previous comment, "the job is certainly unfinished as the paths between the two sides of the track have not yet been mapped", which is still true. | |
| 259152 | 1 | ~ 11 years ago | opened | kent_mapper | Several bits of the same information here, looks cluttered |
| 2 | ~ 11 years ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | You've created the main problem which is the overlapping buildings. One isn't even totally within the other. You want to look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part although you should note that building outline should include all the parts, so, if the inlet near the north corner of the tower is real, it is particularly important that you include a building part for the lower levels. Alternatively, if it better describes what is on the ground, consider http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon but, in that case, the inlet would have had to be an error in either the tower or the remaining building. When tracing over the same outline, make sure that you use the existing nodes. Visual clutter is not a problem if the underlying data is correct. One other thing. How did you determine the height. It is important that that information is included as one needs to prove that it didn't come from a copyright source (e.g. a list of the world's tallest buildings would almost certainly be subject to a database copyright) | |
| 3 | ~ 3 years ago | commented | andrewblack ♦130 | Is this still current | |
| 4 | ~ 3 years ago | closed | RedAuburn ♦6,196 | i've tidied the shapes as much as i can, but still needs a lot of work (building:parts etc) | |
| 5 | ~ 3 years ago | reopened | RedAuburn ♦6,196 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 years ago | closed | paceban351 | All paid! | |
| 7 | ~ 2 years ago | reopened | confusedbuffalo ♦18,096 | Erroneously marked as resolved. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/paceban351/blocks | |
| 8 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | confusedbuffalo ♦18,096 | Erroneously marked as resolved. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/paceban351/blocks | |
| 9 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | ceirios ♦3,793 | what's the status of this? can this be solved? | |
| 10 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | hadw ♦531 | The overlaps seem to have gone, but I did notice some building names that don't look right, and probably should either be descriptions, or specifically tagged, in particular, "Boiler House". Not all of Tower Wing appears to be covered by building parts. I'm also not convinced that you are allowed to include two name, neither of which covers the whole building, in one name attribute. I think the options would be to split on the true boundary, or move this to a description, or use nodes to indicate the general location of the two named parts, if the exact boundary is uncertain. There is a gap between Tower Wing and the large building, to the north, which looks too narrow to be easily navigable, so I'd think that either something over hangs it, and it needs a vertical split, or there is something else wrong, in the mapping. | |
| 5058524 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | hadw ♦531 | The building housing Citigen is the old Port of London Authority building, and still has that name clearly painted on it, which I think gives it some on the ground status, beyond its historical status. Unfortunately Citigen's site isn't tagged as a building, so I don't know if what is mapped is equivalent to the building, and if not, the exact extent of the building, so I don't have enough information to map it myself. |