OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
159138489 about 1 year ago

Actually - one more question - does the cycleway really join the top of the bridge at node/9396732243 ?

159138489 about 1 year ago

@DodoTheDev Thanks for tidying this up. I've removed a bit more of the duplication to the west and also joined up a gap there - http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=151858&noCache=true&_noCache=on

158037856 about 1 year ago

> then I believe nothing will convince you.

To be clear - there is a lot of information in that private message to the DWG. Unfortunately, that tells us only what we know already - that one side of a name dispute has one view about what things should be called.

I know of plenty of places (including within my own country) where there are disputes and it's easy to find statements from government officials that back up _both_ sides - because different levels of government support different sides of the argument.
That's why I suggested discussing opening in the forum, where everyone can see it.

158037856 about 1 year ago

Please can you explain, on the forum c.osm.org , why you think that node/11629870960/history should be deleted.
In osm.org/user_blocks/16885 you have just now been warned about this sort of "tit for tat" deletion - if you believe that something is wrong you must discuss it on the forum before changing it.

158436132 about 1 year ago

@maro21 - proszę odpowiedz na pytania, które Ci tutaj zadano.

158436132 about 1 year ago

@maro21 - please do reply to the questions that you have been asked here.

158749324 about 1 year ago

Looking at way/1135361639 , I'm struggling to see any evidence on current imagery. Do you have any suggestions of better imagery (or as suggested before, on the ground photos)?

158749248 about 1 year ago

You appear to be involved in an editor war over way/1135361639/history . Don't do that.

158749324 about 1 year ago

You appear to be involved in an editor war over way/1135361639/history . Don't do that.

157926370 about 1 year ago

Yes, I was aware of osm.org/user_blocks/16811 . Unlike my DWG colleague, I had thought that the now-removed profile text was something of a joke and a statement about "individual mapper empowerment" :)
Some edits perhaps do deserve discussion - I suspect that a chat about node/5860019950/history on the forum would see people favouring both forms of the name, but in that case the forum is surely the better place for it.

157926370 about 1 year ago

@silversurfer83 There may be a number of reasons why someone might not want to contact a brand new user. Their first language might not be the same as the new mapper, and they know that there are other local mappers in the area, or maybe they just want to let the local mapper "get the hang of things" without constant comments like "do this, not that" (I've argued for that over many years in OSM, and I've certainly seen people put off OSM because of "helpful" comments).
In general I'd suggest that any comments on changesets of a brand new mapper (2 changesets in this case) start with "hello and welcome..." and end with "... and if you have any other questions please hesitate to ask". Anything else would (in England at least) might be considered rude.
Best Regards,
Andy

159112192 about 1 year ago

Hello,

The changeset comment here suggests that you might be having a bit of an issue with bus relations not showing up (somewhere?) and "Fuck this fucking shit. I'm going to fucking delete all the fucking bus routes on this fucking site!!!!" elsewhere suggests a certain amount of frustration with (something)?

What might help is to ask your question over at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 and explain a bit about what the issue is - there are 6 maps at osm.org and lots elsewhere, and they all update at different speeds.

Best Regards,
Andy

158971153 about 1 year ago

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-is-osm-relatify-and-is-there-a-problem-with-it/121526 .

158971153 about 1 year ago

Hello,
I've no idea what "osm-relatify git#91d26e5" is, but this changeset duplicated a whole bunch of ways around way/1332627943 .
Best Regards,
Andy

158599665 about 1 year ago

Thanks - that looks more like it.

158599665 about 1 year ago

Hello,
Actually, the "waterway=derelict_canal" would be on the "formerly wet bit" and the "bridge=aqueduct" would be on the whole area.
There is already a linear waterway=canal through here which you can see at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#19/52.73701/-2.56783 .
Best Regards,
Andy

158698297 about 1 year ago

Great - thanks!

158698297 about 1 year ago

Hello,
I'm assuming here that the NCN2 bypasses the roundabout - that's what I've done in relation/13725970#map=19/50.708432/-2.422838 , hope this is OK.
Best Regards,
Andy

158716439 about 1 year ago

Thanks!

94158736 about 1 year ago

Just wondered - is node/8121495253 really "Sental" or perhaps "Sentinel"?