BCNorwich's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 151565980 | over 1 year ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. No need for the private tags on all the nodes. I've tweaked it a bit to OSM practice. Regards Bernard. |
| 56712595 | over 1 year ago | Two duplicated sections of highway removed. |
| 151486677 | over 1 year ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I've drawn the building and added the address as per OSM practice. Please check the address to make sure it's correct. Regards Bernard. |
| 151444512 | over 1 year ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. The building looks more like a shed than a house, especially as it's in a back garden. Even if it was a house the name would not be House. Thus I've amended your addition to OSM. Regards Bernard. |
| 149736621 | over 1 year ago | OK, no response so I've removed the duplicated highways and created 4 route relations on the existing highways. |
| 151155267 | over 1 year ago | Hi, I've removed several duplicate sections of highway from the three roundabout on The Quays. The relations here were easily checked/corrected. Regards Bernard. |
| 151155267 | over 1 year ago | Hi, Way: 1281775269 was placed on top of Way: 1281774237. I've deleted the duplication. Please try not to make these duplications as they could cause disruption to routing. Regards Bernard. |
| 151155104 | over 1 year ago | Hi, You have highway Way: 1281774249 on top of highway Way: 1281775282. These two ways contain differing route relations which need to be corrected onto a single highway before the deletion of the duplicate highway. Similarly you have highway Way: 1281775281 on top of highway Way: 1281774250. These two ways contain differing route relations which need to be corrected onto a single highway before the deletion of the duplicate highway. These duplications could confuse routing. I see you were correcting the route relations here so could you look at correcting the duplication problem, please. Regards Bernard. |
| 151141992 | over 1 year ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I can see nothing here that is mapped/tagged as LN2 2ZE, therefore there is nothing wrong with OSM data. I did investigate and found as you might have that Royal Mails postcode finder is incorrect. In that it wrongly shows LN2 2ZE in Nettleham. It is Royal Mails postcode positioning software that is at fault. You could try contacting them. I've removed the fixme. Regards Bernard. |
| 151122003 | over 1 year ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. OSM maps what can be verified. These deleted features can be clearly verified from available imagery. Thus I've reinstated them. Because a property is private does not necessitate it's removal from OSM. Most property in the UK is private and is mapped. Regards Bernard. |
| 151048433 | over 1 year ago | Duplicated highway removed. |
| 150967944 | over 1 year ago | Hi, Your scrub area Way: 1279946356 had a few self-intersections and when corrected contained other areas within it. I've removed the self-intersections and made a multipolygon of all the areas. I've noticed you've done this to a few areas recently, (I corrected those areas). Please try to make multipolygons for these types os areas, (overall areas with other areas within), see here for a guide:- osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon Regards Bernard. |
| 150837897 | over 1 year ago | Way: 1279347689, Way: 1279347688 removed, duplicates. |
| 150837897 | over 1 year ago | Way: 1279347692, Way: 1279347693 and Way: 1279347694 removed, duplication. |
| 150838768 | over 1 year ago | Hi, I've removed Way: 1279347696 as it duplicates an existing way. |
| 150837897 | over 1 year ago | Hi, I've removed Way: 1279347695 as it duplicates an existing way. |
| 150837817 | over 1 year ago | Hi, I've removed Way: 1279347208 and Way: 1279347207as it duplicates an existing way. |
| 150823469 | over 1 year ago | Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I've amended your tags to suit OSM practice. Regards Bernard. |
| 150749194 | over 1 year ago | Fiction motorway is removed. |
| 150771578 | over 1 year ago | Hi, I wonder if the house you've tagged as number 12 should rather be number 10, perhaps you could check, please. Regards Bernard. |