Hi.

Nice work! But can you have a second look at the phone number of this one.
way/1051452519/history

Bonjour et merci pour l'info.

Le sentier doit rester sur la carte car il est visible sur les photos aériennes, et sinon d’autres mappers vont le rajouter à chaque fois. Mais nous l’avons passé en accès privé. Ainsi il sera affiché comme non accessible et les applications de randonnée ne proposeront plus de passer par là.

osm.wiki/FR:Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing existing Mapillary pictures.

Some tagging issues, though:

node/6399271304
private=yes → Shouldn’t it be access=private instead?

Also, "survey:date": some devices have been surveyed recently (which did not necessarily imply that something was changed, typically if all the tags were correct). I guess this value reflects the date of the corresponding Mapillary image instead. For clarity, how about using another tag to put this date?

Hello,

A school within a school?
6 objects with the same name?
The school perimeter with a building tag as it if was a giant building overlapping all the existing buildings: way/1220468345

Are you sure you know what you are doing?

We are inclined to erase your latest changes. I spent 20 minutes cleaning up the mess you did for a school in Forest but this one is probably even worse.

Please learn a bit about how OSM works, there are plenty of tutorials around, we have a lot of documentation on our wiki, or simply look at how the school on the same street is mapped: one single area, they do not repeat the school name on every possible building, no need to force postcodes on every building…

Please inspect the tag before criticizing a changeset. I never pretended this was solely a foot path. The tags on this way correctly include, "bicycle=yes", which grants access to cyclists.

When a path is open to two categories of users, mappers may choose, and "highway=footway + bicycle=yes" is an obvious synonym for "highway=cycleway + foot=yes", they will result in the same access tags.
(highway=path + horse=no + mofa=no + moped=no will too but it’s less elegant).

Access values are "yes" or "no". However, "designated" has a legal definition in several countries, for instance in the UK. I am aware that the iD online editor includes a preset for shared foot- and cycleways, but this preset generates those unwanted "designated" tags; this has been a frequent point of disagreement between the community and iD devs, which have been asked several times to deactivate this preset in some countries. So here is the story.

Hello,

Thanks for this but could you please endeavour to draw crossings as a single way instead of two halves: way/1220282557 + way/1220282553

They are a real pain to find and clean-up; if there are available footways on both sides, we will all save time by just drawing normal crossings from one sidewalk to the other.

Thanks.

Thanks for sharing the information that the current situation is not like it was when this changeset was created.

I’ll update it.

Hello,

For generic questions, it may better to write a direct message to mappers instead of commenting on their changesets, since this will give the false impression that this changeset is faultly. This is a changeset from 2016, there was no change we could have used a feature that was proposed only in 2020.

Back in 2016 this was a regular way to tag such situations. Honestly, I don’t know anybody who collects statistics about busway=* on service roads and this is something that might be worth removing altogether one day.

Maybe that highway=busway could be a good choice in the future, but only after they can fix the issue about it not being rendered at all on the main carto layer. We already get way too many notes or map changes from people who "don’t see something on the map", so better not use a tag that will make the road completely invisible.

Revert done, thanks.

Of course we will.

This road is part of the regional cycle network, and is also a link between two knooppunten, which have been implemented fairly recently. I suspect this might be one more case where an angry neighbour made a sign to get rid of cyclists.

We discussed this case today with other mappers. Since this is an illegal sign, we will also remove bicycle=dismount from OSM.

highway=unclassified has different access rules than cycleways, and renders differently. Looking at the pictures, it is quite implausible this place would accept cars.

@Bear-in-a-box: OSM is a map made by humans for humans, one should never assume that cycleways should be removed from the map if you don’t see one particular road sign (D7, D9, D10, F99…). Please trust those who have been building expert knowledge about this over several years, it is much more complex than it seems.

Our cities are full of "grey zones" from a legal point of view, i.e. municipalities sometimes bar entry to a road and put no legal road sign, then it is up to us to figure out the resulting highway type. (Even if we would also prefer to have clear and unambiguous rules.)

You might be interested to read this page: osm.wiki/Duck_tagging This is exactly what we see here. This is a narrow path that is for pedestrians and cyclists (can be mapped as highway=cycleway+foot=yes or highway=footway+bicycle=yes or even highway=pedestrian+bicycle=yes).

Hello,

Your edit has been reverted. Do not upload personal information into the public OSM database.

Have a nice day.

Hello and welcome to OSM.

I see you added a hotel in Brighton and 10 POI in Japan. By uploading all of that at once, it creates a huge bounding box joining the two countries. :-(

Most POI here seem legit, though there might be a few problems for some of them:

1) node/11297526112 is a duplicate of node/10705834546 → Remove your newly-created node.

2) node/11297536412 is a duplicate of node/10693147850 → Remove your newly-created node.

3) node/11297499360 which you tagged as amenity=university is next to an existing node for a dorm run by the university (node/10030844667). It is very unlikely you’ve just found a university that everyone would have missed so far → Please remove your newly-created node.

Thanks for spotting the problem about broken routing here.

Applying foot=yes or bicycle=yes can be a quick fix for the issue. Perhaps it would be better to solve the real problem, i.e. "access=destination" should never have been added in the first place. It’s not your fault, it’s probably a mistake by another mapper some time ago: people see a road sign, apply a tag and forget that the map is not only for cars. Article 2.47 of traffic rules states that a "C3 except for destination traffic" restriction does not apply to cyclists and horse riders (and since pedestrians are not vehicle drivers they should not be barred either).

If you want to spend some time fixing the map, I recommend changing "access=destination" into "motor_vehicle=destination", so that routing will work fine again (you can also remove foot=yes and bicycle=yes you added because they will no longer be necessary in that case).

Details like the colour of a bench are not important, especially if it is made out of wood. You can safely ignore this.
Have a nice day.

Just reflecting on the strange changeset title, i.e. "Added some Objects in Germany and France" because the changeset also includes objects in Ireland. Uploading changes in several countries at once is unwanted in OSM because it makes it harder to review properly. Your change creates a huge bounding box spanning from Ireland to Germany, which annoys mappers in all the places in between (mappers reviewing changes in London, Paris, Rotterdam, Brussels… will see your change in their feed even though there is nothing to see).

That being said, there might be a tagging problem in the bench in Ireland: "colour=naturbelassen" is not a valid tag. Only colour names in English or RGB values are accepted here. You may want to have a second look.

… like this one?
node/11295195339#map=7/53.031/-6.158

Bonjour et bienvenue sur OSM.

Merci pour l’ajout.

Nous avons une photo assez récente de l'endroit, mais sur la photo ce n'est pas un "rack", ce sont des U renversés, ce qui est codé comme bicycle_parking=stands dans OSM.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=417685290186094
Elle est peut-être changée depuis 2022 quand la photo a été prise.

Possible de préciser exactement quel type de parking vélo existe ici svp ? Merci.

OK but next time please do not use aerial imagery to draw new buildings. Even though they are orthophoto there is still some significant distorsion, only UrbIS numerical imagery is accepted as a source to draw building outlines.
I fixed it.

Reverted,.
Those are building structure built above streets, no reason to arbitrarily change their tags.
Tags have been restored.