OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
89234596

Looks like a mistake, I've removed the tag.

144638160

I've fixed this.

144638160

Thanks for spotting this, my mistake.

113031493

Hi, good spot. No idea how I've made such a complete mess of this building, presumably I was trying to change building=house to building=yes but I've somehow invented a new tag with the help of JOSM's automcomplete. I've fixed it now to just have the tag building=yes.

Thanks!

83420801

Yes, you are correct. I realised this after doing this a few times. Have fixed this one in changset 83426339, will fix any other cases where I've done this shortly.

Thanks!

81068525

Actually adding buildings (not adding details to highways).

79119651

I have continued this discussion on changeset/79465541

Please respond.

79465541

Accidentally recorded the above comment with the wrong account. This is my normal account.

78405391

Wrong changeset description. Actually adding buildings.

75949475

Changeset description should have been: Adding buildings to LS15 area.

75949587

Changeset description should have been: Adding buildings to LS15 area.

75949639

Changeset description should have been: Adding buildings to LS15 area.

70997513

Incorrect changset details.
Was actually adding buildings to LS15 using Bing aerial imagery.

67519668

Source is actually Esri.

61891389

Suggested improvements made in changeset/64105874.

61891389

Hi, thanks for the feedback. Was clearly being a bit overzealous trying to ensure everywhere was covered by landuse or amenity!

Obviously this needs a proper survey, but in the meantime here's a suggestion for how I improve the situation:
1. Move the place of worship details to it's own node (that's placed somewhere over the building?) - that way it doesn't cover the whole area.
2. Move the community centre details onto the outline of the area (including outdoor space) from the building (in line with advice on amenity=community_centre)

Does this seem sensible?

51884385

Apologies, I checked that 01539 was a valid area code, not relalising there was a more specific one. I've changed this back.