OpenStreetMap
James Derrick's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 74223633 | about 5 years ago | Hi jambamkin,
Can I suggest consulting the OSM wiki or taginfo if there's a tag value you don't recognise? It can be a surprisingly useful way to expand your mapping vocabulary:
PS Did you know adding the surface=* tag to highway=footway is useful for routers, and the default Mapnik renderer changes the 'strength' of the red line accordingly?
Happy Mapping, James |
| 90968241 | about 5 years ago | Hi Jez,
[out:json][timeout:25];
|
| 90968241 | about 5 years ago | Hi Jez,
Thanks for the reminder to fix the bodge of both UPRN and USRN tags on highway=*. Are you using a validation tool please?
Happy Mapping, James |
| 91410964 | about 5 years ago | Hi wellasus, Thanks for the fix - I've fat-fingered changes myself, so Happy Mapping! James |
| 92297264 | about 5 years ago | Map update with additional detail:
Happy Mapping... |
| 91410964 | about 5 years ago | Hi wellasus, In this changeset you turned the whole of the Broomhill residential area into a motorway services area. This is doubly odd as there are no significant trunk roads nor motorways nearby. This is clearly wrong - I live nearby and have surveyed the ground truth many times. Please revert this change as soon as possible. Happy Mapping, James |
| 91208863 | about 5 years ago | Hi GinaroZ, Given the closure duration is over a year, I've got to agree. When it re-opens it will need a re-survey anyway as both access roads are being remodelled with parking. Adding both closure tags now! Happy Mapping, James |
| 91687875 | about 5 years ago | Hi Nora, With the exception of CMP Products (which has undergone some recent expansion), these units are different business from neighbours, so after adding detailed barrier=* and natural=scrub to separate the sites after a ground survey, the effort to split up and re-align a man_made=works area felt too much, so I'm afraid I took the easy way out and hit delete. :-( * This area is set of mixed use industrial estates, and the units aren't car production plants nor oil refineries so the single tag man_made=works seemed a bad fit. Most units are SME (car repair, double glazing installers, printers, building material distributor, etc) and the wider area is already marked as landuse=industrial. * IMHO, the area added no information to the map - the man_made=works didn't include a name=*, or other additional information like product=*. * The areas were only loosely aligned with the outline of individual premises, didn't align with existing fence lines and certainly not with the ground truth. Personally, I've only seen man_made=works used on single large buildings , or single occupant sites rather than as an extra overlay on top of large parts of an already mapped mixed industrial estate. What additional meaning are you looking to convey please? |
| 65400408 | over 5 years ago | This tagging practice is expressly _not_ one I use for exactly the reasons you cite. Please check the object history before pointing fingers. As point of fact, I have been replacing highway=* area=yes with individual road lines. I suggest you read this note:
|
| 81491700 | over 5 years ago | Hi Jesspher, There are several out of copyright map sources that variously call this farmstead Cockplay, or West Cockplay. NLS - Bartholomew Half Inch, 1897-1907
Looking again at the range of names, the newer sources suggest:
Happy Mapping, James |
| 86072004 | over 5 years ago | Hi GinaroZ, Darn - Apologies, I didn't spot the landuse _didn't_ actually have a shop=supermarket tag on it! Some errors hide in dark corners - thanks for another set of eyes to validate my edit! Happy Mapping, James |
| 86072004 | over 5 years ago | Hi GinaroZ, As the whole site is operated by Morrisons, including the car park and loading areas, I've tagged the entire site way as landuse=retail, shop=supermarket, name=* rather than a node. The same principle applies to nearby schools, The Amble Inn (just noticed better Bing / Maxar imagery to improve it...), etc. If the building were sub-divided into several individual outlets, then I'd agree, but that's not what I saw, albeit driving past... Happy Mapping, James |
| 87067280 | over 5 years ago | Hi Thomas, I made the change from highway=construction; construction=trunk to highway=trunk; access=no as several sources of imagery suggest the 'ground truth' is construction of this section is complete, but obviously not connected and not open to traffic. Using imagery for 'armchair edits' always risks being out of date with the ground truth, however I'd suggest that highway = construction is no longer correct for this section. This approach has the advantage of showing progress on the ground, without creating a routable way. The downside is that highway=trunk is rendered with much more emphasis than construction, even with access=no - but we all try not to tag for the renderer :) The junction tags on the A1 for Spittlegate Junction did make me think, as the junction doesn't seem to physically exist. A lifecycle prefix like 'planned:' isn't widely used, and didn't want to risk breaking carefully curated information. Being remote from the 'ground truth' I won't be offended it you wish to re-tag to better match what is really going on, but hope my logic makes sense. All the best and Happy Mapping, James |
| 85208063 | over 5 years ago | Hi falkirk81, Just wanted to say thanks for your good work in Morpeth Southfields with a recent GPSr trace and adding the new phase to the East. In the JOSM editor there are extra sources of aerial imagery which can help interpret road junctions, so using recent Maxar imagery I've tried to smooth out Bowyer Way and added what looks like groundworks for new roads. The hard bit is GPSr and imagery data never quite align, so some 'averaging by eye' is needed until more traces are available. Hope the result fits with your ground survey - I've not managed to cycle over and survey Morpeth for a while. All the best, James |
| 86191148 | over 5 years ago | Hi Rafael and welcome to OSM! I notice you have added an area of farmland to the Banks Delhi Surface Mine:
Unfortunately, Bing imagery is out of date in this area, and the current mapping is based on more recent Maxar Premium imagery and local survey (I live nearby). This area is an active mine, and not farmland. Would you mind removing the new fields as currently they don't exist please?
You also added a several areas of tree_row to an area of heath in Northumberland - tree_row describes a row of trees, and this area is heathland without any trees visible in several imagery sources.
Would you mind removing these objects, as I don't think they reflect the 'ground truth' of bare heath without trees:
Around Longbenton, you added a service parking_aisle to Aydon Gardens:
The tagging you chose is perfect, however the west-east section duplicates the existing highway=residential - would you mind reviewing this edit, and perhaps removing the West-East section, leaving the North-South part connecting to Aydon Gardens please? The area of grass you added nearby could also use a little tweak, as it overlaps the road:
If you need help, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Everyone learns and adds detail to one map - the key is we work together! :) Also, you have uploaded a large edit covering more than one continent with a very short comment - "a". Comments are designed to help other mappers understand your contribution, so are very important. Please break down your edits into individual areas as this makes understanding your work much easier for others in the community. Thanks for your understanding, and Happy Mapping!, James |
| 74220697 | over 6 years ago | Hi Gregory, After seeing your footpath map notes, I had a look at your nearby changesets to understand if you'd started adding detail. Unfortunately, your changeset description confused me - data shows only solar PV, and no new roads. Would you mind using more descriptive changeset comments please? Thanks, and happy mapping! James |
| 72068209 | over 6 years ago | Hi jmeikle, I notice you have extended Magdalene Place to the West. Can you confirm that this area been completed and opened as a driveway please? When I surveyed on 2019-03-22, this was the Bellway showhouse office, with a private footway area surrounded by low 3-bar metal fencing. My survey photos also show the spelling as 'Magdalene Place', and not 'Magdelene Place' as you have have added.
Thanks, James |
| 72068030 | over 6 years ago | Hi jmeikle, Welcome to the OSM community, and thanks for taking the time and effort to contribute to the map! Can I check the status of this phase of St. Nicholas Manor please? When I last surveyed in June (GPS trace uploaded to OSM), the area around Normanby Gardens was an active building site, with harris fencing preventing any access, homes without roofs, footways without tarmac, and no units occupied.
I notice in Changeset #72068030 you have changed several roads to highway=residential, but left construction=residential. Can I ask you to review your edits and the OSM Wiki for the definition of these tags please?
My understanding of tagging best practice is only completed and open roads should be set as residential, with those barred off and incomplete set as construction. This prevents map users being routed through closed roads or footways (such as the W-E closed Public Footpath and N-S new footways). When highways and footways are complete and open to the public, the construction=* tags should also be removed. I'd also suggest if it is finished, Saxilby Close is unlikely to be a living_street (Home Zone in the UK), and more like Oasby Close which is usually mapped as residential with private service driveway areas at the end:
You have also added a new area way covering part of the estate, which is a duplicate of two already on the map, so I'd suggest deleting it:
Also, you seem to have copied the node place=town tag for Cramlington for name='Bellway Homes - St Nicholas Manor'.
Cramlington is a town, but I'd say St Nicholas Manor is a neighbourhood, or suburb (albeit a nice shiny new one). :-) The estate name is also already tagged on the overall area ways, which are better than a node tag as it allows systems using our data to work out that other features are within the area (e.g. no need to add extra tags to say Manby Court is_in St. Nicholas Manor - software can work that out itself). I well understand that some editing tools can cause confusion as they suggest common tag combinations, which are easy to say Yes to, especially when you're finding your way around for the first time. Thanks again for taking the time to improve the map - and please message me back with your thoughts. I'll try hard to answer your questions. BTW - did you know that Amazon Logistics also edit and use OSM, so getting new streets right can help deliveries! Happy Mapping, James |
| 70502558 | over 6 years ago | Hi Gregory, It is possible that a green field is farmland, or livestock seasonal, but is this at heart a difference in interpretation of tag definitions? These are areas I cycle and drive through so I feel I do know what the areas are constituted of. Following the wiki definition, I've been using evidence such as grazing animals in a field or the absence of tractor compaction to set landuse=meadow, rather than ploughed areas set landuse=farmland. My intention is to differentiate between patterns of arable and livestock cultivation. I accept that not all individual fields have been created as individual fields, however the boundaries are in my mapping in the case where blocks of visually similar cultivation are a single polygon. I feel my contribution speaks for itself as an improvement to the map, and as comment text is cold and rather prone to mis-interpretation, can I suggest moving a discussion on the best tagging strategy to talk-gb or tagging before making wholesale changes please? Thanks, James |
| 65864748 | almost 7 years ago | Hi Mike, This footpath has apparently been closed due to building works adjacent, with a diversionary path created nearby (note included on Way: 659069221). I couldn't see NCC PROW notices here (unlike the W-E section) so have not added lawfully diverted.
TTFN, James |