OpenStreetMap logo OpenStreetMap

Changeset When Comment
52774979 about 6 years ago

Is this still closed? way/91342263/history

55997342 about 6 years ago

I'm guessing this isn't supposed to still be access=no? way/384765378/history

67366092 about 6 years ago

Managed to fix this (after I saw the solution posted on reddit), there was a duplicate section here way/671167498

74330916 about 6 years ago

I'm wondering if it should even be in OSM then if it's not signed on the ground. Or at least it should be tagged as state=proposed like some other routes so that renders differently.

74909762 about 6 years ago

Hi, just wondering why you've set part of the road to construction? Are there roadworks here and if so how long are they going on for?

74330916 about 6 years ago

Hi, is this a signed route?

74719472 over 6 years ago

Hi, what is your source for this edit? Surely there is still a connection between these two roads for pedestrians?

74640217 over 6 years ago

Hi, I'm assuming you didn't mean to set this railway line as being in a tunnel? way/143768619

74455362 over 6 years ago

oops sorry, that was me - there was a missing section to the west and I carried on adding to the relation, forgetting it went along the coast!

73723410 over 6 years ago

Sorry for the delay. The reason I asked is because the track was surveyed a few months ago by a local mapper, and I didn't notice the gate had been tagged as private.
I tried the Komoot route planner and it only directed me through the gate using the moutain bike profile. However as the gate is private it shouldn't really be directing anyone that way - maybe worth raising it as a bug with them.

74193507 over 6 years ago

If it's in the middle of a route then I'd say it should be part of the route - the two ferries near Fort William are a very important part of NCN 78 (so that you avoid the A82).
And if NCN 1, 75, 78 include ferries but 73 doesn't, then surely that means it should be added to the 73 route and not removed from others? :)

74141625 over 6 years ago

I've reverted these changes.

74331818 over 6 years ago

Hi, I've remove the five duplicate parks you added as there's already one on the map at the same location.

74258599 over 6 years ago

Hi, thanks for adding the fixme - however it's probably better if you add a note like this to the location as it's more likely to be seen by other mappers :)
note/1921623

73597708 over 6 years ago

Hi, saw you had added a long housenumber here: node/6733525285/history - for a range of numbers you're better offer using an addr:interpolation line and the high/low housenumbers at each end.

74239004 over 6 years ago

Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for adding the building to resolve the note. Just to point out that in the editor there is a function to "square" the corners - either press Q or right click - so that the building is the correct shape. :)

74225307 over 6 years ago

Hi, looks like you've moved features at Gorebridge station to match the Maxar imagery - however, this is out of alignment with Bing, and also OSSV to which the railway line is drawn from.

74193507 over 6 years ago

Why remove the ferry crossing?

72655345 over 6 years ago

Why did you add the name of a roundabout as a hamlet? node/6647315832

74141625 over 6 years ago

Unfortunately you seem to have misaligned parts of the coastline.
In this area, Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta imagery (aka old Bing) is out of alignment with GPS and new Bing imagery.
The coastline should be the blue MHWS line found in OS OpenData StreetView.
Think it would be best if this changeset was reverted.