Hi Simon,

In this changset, you edited the post box node/29160634 on Martyrs Field Road. But the comment says "Update Zealand Road postbox".

So I'm wondering if you accidentally changed the wrong object in OSM. Perhaps you intended to edit node/29160767 instead?

It looks like you used an AED Map App (proabably connected with https://openaedmap.org/ ) to add the AED to OpenStreetMap. I don't know if that app has the functionality to move an AED once it's been added.

But in any case, it seems you've deleted it from the incorrect location. So you can presumably now just add it back in the right place.

If you want more editing functionality, then look at the place you're interested in on OpenStreetMap, e.g. osm.org/#map=18/51.613951/0.541720 . Login if you're not already, and then click on the "Edit" button near the top left of the screen.

Hi Callum! In this changeset you added an AED node/12927995103 with the location description "AED on 3G Football Pitch".

However, the current location of the node on the map is in a residential garden on Charters Court. Could you have a look at repositioning it to be in the current location (presumably somewhere by the 3G pitch at Beauchamps High School. It would also be good if you could improve the description to provide details of exactly where it is relative to the pitch (inside/outside the fence, and maybe near a particular entrance).

Many thanks,
Robert.

I think I was intending to tag it as a shop selling office equipment. Is there a better tag for that?

Hi FeeHaw,

In this changeset you mapped this node node/11332743487 as a bank, with the name "Premiere ATM".

This seems odd. Is there really a bank with that name here? Or is it perhaps a "Premier" convenience store with an ATM outside it?

It's part of a JOSM workflow I use when editing *.osm files manually. JOSM will only upload objects it thinks has changed, and one was to mark the objects as changed is to make a change in JOSM. So I add "rjw:update" tags to the objects I want to edit, save the file as *.osm, manually edit it, reload it in JOSM, remove the "rjw:update" tags and then upload to OSM. I forgot to remove the tags this time.

Thanks for spotting it; I've now removed them all.

If you want any more tips nearby, then you might be interested in my tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/#14/51.7528/-1.2853

Hi,

You added indoor=yes to the AED at node/8788255692 in this changeset.

Could you check if this was what you intended? The node contains the location description "On exterior wall of building..." which would suggest it's not indoors (or wasn't at the time it was mapped). If it is now indoors, then the description should be updated too.

Many thanks.

Ok, thanks. We can't use Google Maps or StreetView when contributing to OpenStreetMap, but the location in your link above, would put the AED on the church at way/1035602385 .

However your node as about 80m away next to a different building way/1035602358 .

Are you able to correct the location of node/12800322535 (without using Google StreetView)?

Now fixed, thanks. (It should have been amenity=veterinary.)

Hi Krewlex,

Could you check the location of the AED/Defib you added at node/12800322535 ?

You tagged it with defibrillator:location="Side-wall of church, next to notice board" but the actual location looks (from aerial imagery) to be next to a house, not a church.

Should the AED actually be located somewhere around here: osm.org/?mlat=51.358254&mlon=1.151161#map=19/51.358253/1.151161 ?

In this changeset you added an AED at node/12777792401 with the location description "on the wall bell inn pub Anslow". There's a "Bell Inn" pub mapped in the village at node/266229314 , but this is almost 1km SW from where you placed the AED. Are you sure you put the AED in the right location?

I know it was a while ago, but I'm a bit confused by the tagging changes that you applied to way/507336768 in this changeset. Do you remember what information you were trying to capture about the current use of the building?

shop=appliance is fine here. I've updated the node.

(Given the wiki description for shop=appliance and the British English usage of the term "White Goods", this is likely to be true everywhere in the UK.)

Hi Mr-HW,

In this changeset, you added an AED: node/12438856002 .

Could I ask where you got the "defibrillator:location:en" value of "Centre Of Pond 107M From Dairy Farm Barn, Great Green 10M From NewRoad" from? If it's been taken from another dataset, who owns the copyright and do you have permission to use it in OSM?

Many thanks,
Robert.

Regarding the Definitive Map and Statement, both seem to show FP19 and FP34 as indicated by the GIS data that's shown in the overlay at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/norfolk/south-norfolk/wymondham/ .

Legally, even if the Definitive Map and Statement contain mistakes, they're still regarded as being "Definitive", i.e. any route shown on them is legally a Public Right of Way, until such time as the Map and Statement are modified. So even if the routes were supposed to have been removed, the fact that they haven't been means they legally still exist.

Actually though, I don't think there's any mistake. Typically, when a new road like the A11 is built, existing routes are cut. Sometimes additional links are added to help join things up (like Wymondham FP 33 in this case) but almost always the existing sections are left - even if some become dead ends.

The fact that the Statements for these paths show they were modified in October 2001 to take account of the A11 supports this idea.

I'm a bit surprised that when they altered the paths for the A11, they didn't add a link along the farmn access road to join osm.org/?mlat=52.55120&mlon=1.11870#map=16/52.55120/1.11870 to FP 19 . As this would allow a connection to FP33 over the new Park Lane bridge. Perhaps the intention was you'd be able to cross the A11 on foot west of Park Farm.

It's not clear to me whether it was the intention to allow crossings of the A11 between FP 18 and FP 34. Whether it was or not, I suspect the highway verges are too overgrown to be used now.

Hi sarukwa, I've just done a few edits in the area that might improve things. I've mapped Park Farm from aerial imagery. There's no sign of the path for FP34 from the imagery, and from what you wrote, it seems that there's nothing obvious on the ground either. The highway=path that was in OSM didn't follow the Definitive Line anyway, so I've adjusted it so it does. Given there doesn't seem to be a physical path, and it seems it's not actually used by anyone, I've also changed it to highway=no: way/904683329 .

Hi Thingummy, can I check the designation values you gave to way/123811168 and way/112062963 in this changeset?

"Restricted Bridleway" is not a type of route; did you mean "Public Bridleway" or "Restricted Byway" instead?

However, according to the official records from Cambridgeshire County Council, the route is currently neither of these. I did find an *application* for a Definitive Map Modification Order to add a Restricted Byway along this route: https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/asset-library/imported-assets/M275-LH.pdf . But currently this is only an application, and the table at https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/asset-library/imported-assets/DMMO-Register.pdf says that it's "awaiting investigation" so it's by no means certain that it will ever be added in the future.

We should only map what the current status is now. It's looks like that is undetermined, with assumed access rights for at least non-motorised traffic. I'd map it like that, with a note linking to the DMMO application.

In this changeset, it looks like you deleted two ways that record the official Definitive Line of some Public Rights of Way:
* way/653959382
* way/653959383

While these routes aren't physically present on the ground, it is useful for them to be recorded in OSM, to show where the official route that people are legally permitted to use goes, and that this route has been checked an found not to be present on the ground. It also helps avoid other mappers accidentally recording the physical route on the ground as a Public Right of Way.

I've therefore re-added the two ways above.

In general, I think mapping the pavements (sidewalks) separately is a better representation of reality, and allows for better pedestrian routing and tagging properties of the pavements. Sometimes it has to be done to capture what's on the ground, and then things look inconsistent if you don't do it fully in an area. If I recall correctly here, some of the paths round the cross-roads were already mapped separately here, but not all of them, so I completed some of the missing parts.