OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
49272844 over 8 years ago

Did you meant to delete this path? way/200228901

49227923 over 8 years ago

Honestly I'm not too sure either - nothing much on any mailing lists, and the only real place it's mentioned in the wiki is osm.wiki/NaPTAN/Surveying_and_Merging_NaPTAN_and_OSM_data

Looking at imported stops in Edinburgh without the verified tag, seems like they were removed 3 years ago by a mapper who probably just checked their existance changeset/17791127

But since it's a NaPTAN tag, maybe it's just to check the stop is actually there?

49250384 over 8 years ago

Hi,
Any particular reason why you deleted lit=no from a number of paths and roads?

49249701 over 8 years ago

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits. Just a few comments on your changes:
way/498060269 - if this doesn't have A&E then it should be tagged with emergency=no
School buildings, when enclosed in school grounds shouldn't have a name: way/394657414
Cheers

49227923 over 8 years ago

Hi, noticed you added a note saying this bus stop is present and has been verified: node/502532560 - if so you should probably remove the naptan:verified tag. Same goes for other stops.

37337857 over 8 years ago

It seems like all 3 of Scotland's regional parks have been tagged as nature reserves - perhaps as the boundary=protected_area tag on its own doesn't render on the standard layer?
Don't know if boundary=national_park would be appropriate or only for use on Cairngorms/Loch Lomond?

49172300 over 8 years ago

Hi,
The Old Mill Inn could probably be combined with a relation so there's not a duplicate, and building tags added as well. Or draw a way around the grounds and tag it as a pub?
I assume this should be ref=B9077, and a bridge over the stream? way/40967522

49167160 over 8 years ago

Why have you added this building?

49136541 over 8 years ago

I assume node/3012910526 is a duplicate of the health centre/doctors?

49133478 over 8 years ago

A hunting stand named "Simon" and parking named "house boot airb&b" - really?

49106735 over 8 years ago

Nice to have you back :)
Walking/cycle routes are mapped using relations, here's the WHW relation/16287 Looking at other routes, the individual paths don't have the route name, just the relation.
Rule of thumb for path versus track seems to be if it's wide enough for a vehicle highway=track
If that's the case, you might also want to change the bridges on the paths as well, eg: way/490705118

49071891 over 8 years ago

Thanks for the reply. If you look at the link and scroll down you'll see it was changed to tertiary (i.e. declassified) 3 years ago. This matches what OS shows and what's described in https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=B764

So I'm just wondering what's changed since then or is the previous edit (and OS) wrong? :)

49071891 over 8 years ago

You might have made it neater but you've removed some of the information from the map by deleting the old road and not adding the info to the new road, see: way/70610064/history
Also, why have you changed it to highway=secondary?

49106735 over 8 years ago

Hi, welcome to OSM.
Just to make you aware you don't need to add the WHW name to each path as they are part of a larger WHW route relation.
Also you've changed some tracks to path - why is that? Are they definitely not big enough for farm vehicles?

48923147 over 8 years ago

Here's one marked under construction with a ref: node/2296370179 - use the overpass-turbo link and click "run" to find more.

48515594 over 8 years ago

I'd seen lanes=1 used for narrow roads before, so it was a surprise when I read the wiki page saying the lanes tag was for marked lanes.

Unless you get your tape measure out and measure the width, lanes=1 or 1.5 judged by car widths are surely a better estimate?

48923147 over 8 years ago

You might want to remove these nodes: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/pfe and maybe add the ref to your nodes?
Also, did you check the offset for the DG imagery? Might not matter too much for power towers but usually it's a bit off compared to Bing.

48740943 over 8 years ago

Hi, thanks for extending NCN 6. However you've created a new relation, so I've merged it with the existing NCN relation.

47205769 over 8 years ago

If these are actually disused (ie rails still in place) they should probably be tagged railway=disused instead:
way/483069249
way/483067879
way/483454031
way/483454036

48791201 over 8 years ago

The abandoned/disused=yes is a discouraged method of tagging old features - they will still be rendered as railway=rail.
Either needs to be railway=abandoned or use the lifecycle prefix, abandoned:railway=rail.
So I've retagged them all as railway=abandoned :)