OpenStreetMap
SomeoneElse's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 177729349 | Hello,
|
|
| 177785770 | That explains it - I've restored the original post office node node/5743772095/history and moved it to a likely location. |
|
| 177808848 | Thanks! |
|
| 177674320 | Isn't that what the OSM tag is for, though?
|
|
| 177674320 | For completeness, see osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . No name shows on https://www.comune.castelfrancoveneto.tv.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/aree-di-emergenza.pdf , just the reference "R". |
|
| 173898679 | Many wiki pages just reflect the view of the person that wrote the text and are never effectively reviewed - this appears to be one of those. I am sure that most people would agree that having a name on a `man_made=bridge` object makes sense. I suspect where fewer people agree is about removing related `bridge:name` tags on the ways over the bridge - there are > 100k uses worldwide. Raise a topic in the forum and see if you can get agreement with your edits to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/111682889 . |
|
| 177779014 | Actually, ticket Ticket#2026012710000541 |
|
| 173898679 | Hello,
|
|
| 175312277 | Thanks! |
|
| 177629591 | Hello,
|
|
| 175312277 | Hello,
|
|
| 177580022 | Hello,
More feedback from the locals - apparently the northwestern part of way/1469590576/history is "gorse/woody shrubs and rocky outcrops" (so perhaps natural=scrub in OSM) and the southeastern part "is indeed a grassy field" (which would actually suggest meadow in OSM rather than grassland, to be honest). Best Regards,
|
|
| 124897288 | Hello,
|
|
| 177490636 | Hello, Andy from the DWG here. Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems here that have caused one of the locals to contact us. For reference I'm using http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=177490636 to see "before and after" of this change. One issue that I can see with it is the deletion of way/1184613232/history . I added that back in 2023 as someone had been trying to create a "path" from the driveway to the nature reserve by knocking a hole in the wall at osm.org/#map=20/55.8952239/-4.6184957 . You've deleted that line saying "there is not a path here", and there is now nothing to indicate that there is definitely NOT a path there. There have been attempts to make changes in this area via "feedback" to commercial remote OSM editors, and those remote editors' verification of information received is sometimes not great. The other is that the change in geometry of way/1171570694 is incorrect. There's a kink in the driveway at osm.org/#map=18/55.896171/-4.617857 that isn't very clear on all aerial imagery (though if you look you can see it on various Esri imagery). This was very clear on a series of photographs that the DWG were provided with by one of the driveway residents back in 2023. A third change (of way/1171577228/history from gravel service road to track) is arguably also incorrect - there's no agricultural access here; it's just access to private properties, although this other usage of "track" is not unknown in OSM. Also, apparently elsewhere in Kilmacolm you've added 30mph limits where they are actually 20. We haven't been provided with a specific example of a problem but I suspect that way/91006628/history may be one. We have been provided with https://www.inverclyde.gov.uk/environment/roads-lighting/rollout-of-20mph-speed-limits#:~:text=The%20speed%20limit%20on%20most,follows%20a%20comprehensive%20analysis%20of as a link to the policy. My apologies if this reads like a list of problems when all you've been trying to do is to improve the map locally (including adding things like way/1468857032/history which were just not there before), but the issue with the driveway has been the subject of a series of legal issues. Something that might help is to look at the history of objects and previous changesets and comments. For example, if you look at way/1171577228/history you can see I've added information not just to my changeset comments but also in detail as discussion comments too. Best Regards,
PS: If you'd like to contact the DWG directly about this ticket you can email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject line of "[Ticket#2026010810000309] changeset/177490636". |
|
| 177472610 | ¿qué? |
|
| 177462926 | Thanks - fixing this restored 1 Anglican parish, 8 townlands, 3 civil parishes, 2 baronies, and 2 counties! |
|
| 173662814 | Very little in OpenStreetMap is "strictly forbidden". However, it is a collaborative project - we need to work together to create the best map. If one person is doing something that other people find really annoying, it is common courtesy to stop. |
|
| 173662814 | Kysymyksestä maankäytön liimaamisesta teihin, mielestäni useimmat kartoittajat nykyään yrittäisivät olla tekemättä sitä. Myös landuse=residential#Separation_from_roads sanoo: "Maankäytön liimaamista tieviivoihin ei suositella. Liimattu maankäyttö tekee datan kanssa työskentelystä paljon vaikeampaa. On parempi, että maankäytön raja päättyy tien reunaan, ajoradan reunaan tai että se menee kokonaan päällekkäin tien kanssa, jos sama maankäyttö jatkuu toisella puolella." |
|
| 173662814 | On the question of gluing landuse to roads, I think most mappers nowadays would try not to do it. Also, landuse=residential#Separation_from_roads says "It is strongly discouraged to glue landuse to road lines. Glued landuse makes the data much harder to work with. It is better to have the landuse boundary stop at the edge of the road, the edge of right of way, or overlap the road completely if the same landuse continues on the other side. " |
|
| 169783461 | There isn't really such a thing as "access=agricultural" in England and Wales. Sometimes access along lanes like this will be private, and sometimes people keeping sheep will rent fields off each other , but their access doesn't make it "not private". Sometimes there may be permissive foot or horse access and sometimes (though not here) a legal right of way.
|