BCNorwich's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 90422951 | over 5 years ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Sorry to say that you've somehow added a lot of self intersections with your mapping. Please see here :- https://tinyurl.com/y3r9w7zg Could you please rectify these errors. If you need help please just ask.
|
| 90467237 | over 5 years ago | Hi the landuse=residential area is already mapped as a multipolygon. I've amended to remove the duplicate area implication.
|
| 90467177 | over 5 years ago | The residential area is within a larger residential multipolygon area. Thus this area is duplication, I've removed the duplication, added a POI for this place and updated the multipolygon area tags. Regards Bernard. |
| 90453352 | over 5 years ago | Hi, to whom is the access permitted? |
| 90452646 | over 5 years ago | Hi, you only map a crossing if it is a formal feature of the highway. There are lots of paths crossing roads with no formal crossing point. |
| 90452618 | over 5 years ago | I joined some of the paths to roads. Added rail crossing. |
| 90452416 | over 5 years ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
|
| 90350374 | over 5 years ago | Hi, Just to let you know that usually there is no need for the tag oneway=no as this is implied by OSM by it's absence. Regards Bernard. |
| 90347259 | over 5 years ago | Hi, in the absence of the tag oneway=no OSM usually takes it as implied that there is not a oneway restriction. Thus in this cast the tag oneway=no is unnecessary. Regards Bernard. |
| 90330269 | over 5 years ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The OSM tag internet_access is not meant for public access sites not those places limited to student access, please see :- internet_access=* Thus I've removed those tags and added a note to describe WLAN access. I removed the boundary as it's not relevant. I placed the POI data on the building outline. Regards Bernard. |
| 90250751 | over 5 years ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. It's OSM practice when a feature needs amending/correcting to do this to the existing feature if possible. Thus all history of the feature is maintained. Your new paths were placed on-top of existing highways. I've remove the duplicated sections of way, keeping the updated tags. Regards Bernard. |
| 90181817 | over 5 years ago | Tweak path and field lines, add bridge, join stiles to path line. |
| 90183131 | over 5 years ago | A few tweaks to buildings and paths. |
| 90260833 | over 5 years ago | Generator reinstated to relation that was inadvertently removed. |
| 90266909 | over 5 years ago | Hi, Please see here for golf features tagging :- leisure=golf_course Regards Bernard. |
| 90208439 | over 5 years ago | Hi,
|
| 89100303 | over 5 years ago | Hi, I likely didn't see, change all that needed changing. The references are the LIL 4/2 which are County Council references. They usually mean Parish, path number, path section number, (or something like that). If a path has a formal name by all means tag it as well as the ref number. If I can help further please just ask. Regards Bernard. |
| 90140083 | over 5 years ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Regards Bernard. |
| 89749751 | over 5 years ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Because the duplication is extensive and there are route relations involved it might be best to revert this changeset entirely. You can then start afresh with any corrections. Need help please just ask. Regards Bernard. |
| 90039567 | over 5 years ago | Hi Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Your three Bird Sactuary POI's don't really make sense from an OSM data view. The walkway is not on a walking way nor looks like a viewpoint, (just the side of a road). The Bird Sanctuary Parking free node is not tagged as parking nor does it look like a viewpoint. I can't figure out what you might mean here so I can't help with amendments on these features. Regards Bernard. |