OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
160441271 12 months ago

Do these parking area's have specific names? I belive they do not so the name should be removed. There are specific tags (capacity/capacity:disabled etc) to distingush parking types.

159759220 12 months ago

Same as another of your changeset's, are these path's signed/named 'Gillingham Park'? Normally path's do not have names, especially like here where all the path's cross/interconnect?

159915018 12 months ago

Are these path's physically seperated from the highway? Usual convention is to use the 'sidewalk' tag on the highway to define location etc of the path. Even if the path is seperated, the path ifself typically does not have it's own name so the name tag should be removed.

160266446 12 months ago

You have mapped multiple 'basic' building's as relations (example 18419955). Is there a reason they have been mapped as relations?

159498409 12 months ago

Is there a reason you have added '(site of)' to these industrial areas? The name has been added to industrial areas for the business name. so '(site of') is redundant.

158096216 12 months ago

Is node/12269266801 (and couple of others nearby) a electrcial substation? Sat image appears to actaully be a Telecommunications cabinet (BT/Virgin Media etc)?

156217506 12 months ago

Are these path's signed as being named Great Lines? I do not remember these being specifically named especially as they are intercross each other etc.

158233155 about 1 year ago

Hi Demisee,
Your use of the 'building=roof' is incorrect, I would recommend reading the wiki article here: building=roof. Using the 'roof:*' tags would be more appropriate here i think and would be placed on the main building part.

115917402 almost 4 years ago

addr:province or addr:state. Either way addr:county is undocumented and not the 'norm'

115916546 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

115916573 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

115916768 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

115916822 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

115916985 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

115917094 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

115917162 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

115917250 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

115917402 almost 4 years ago

Cant find any documented use of addr:county. Should probably be reverted back to addr:state.

66304526 almost 7 years ago

The 3 buildings have the correct name tags so not sure why you have then added building names to amenity areas? Please revert your change.

62582529 over 7 years ago

Hi James, Great to see another local mapper.
Could you please use descriptive changeset comments? This helps other contributors to understand your changes more easily i.e. What you have modified/created. See also: osm.wiki/Changeset
Thank you