gurglypipe's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 65556208 | about 7 years ago | Hi, thanks for contributing to OSM! Do you know if Brew has replaced the deli at 18a Brock St?
|
| 65547864 | about 7 years ago | Please at least add the HE_ref tags so the heritage sites can link to the canonical source of English heritage data, rather than redirecting through wikidata.
|
| 65542514 | about 7 years ago | Tweaked in changeset/65544904. I hope that’s OK. Thanks for your work on everything!
|
| 65542514 | about 7 years ago | I think it should be at level=0, since it’s at ground level. level=-1 is underground. I’ll fix it up.
|
| 65509797 | about 7 years ago | And here: listed_status=*
|
| 65509797 | about 7 years ago | The wiki gives a few more tags which should be used for indicating listed status: osm.wiki/Tag:heritage:operator=, HE_ref= and osm.wiki/Tag:listed_status=. See here: changeset/65528977
|
| 65507177 | about 7 years ago | Delete what? Why?
|
| 65507273 | about 7 years ago | Note that instead of deleting closed shops/banks, you could (for example) change from shop=beauty to disused:shop=beauty, delete the business-specific tags like the website, but keep the address. That way the postcode and building number information doesn’t get lost. See osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix for details.
|
| 65417623 | about 7 years ago | I realise that (I am a cyclist). It still seems redundant to add bicycle=yes to roads when the default legal status is for bikes to be allowed on roads. Similarly, the default legal status for motorways is for bikes to not be allowed, so tagging them with bicycle=no seems redundant. Where has all this data come from? |
| 65417623 | about 7 years ago | You’ve put bicycle=yes on the Caton Road interchange even though there are cycle paths explicitly mapped separately from the roadway. Why? Where has all this data come from?
|
| 65317069 | about 7 years ago | (Source is presumably: https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2018/08/09/england-has-a-new-mountain-miller-moss-now-go-find-it)
|
| 65308878 | about 7 years ago | If you know these are definitely all terraced houses, you could use building=terrace to leave a bit more information in the map.
|
| 65294984 | about 7 years ago | Hi, this shop appears to already exist in the building just to the north. Have they expanded, or is this a duplicate?
|
| 65241373 | about 7 years ago | Wow, where’d you get all this data from?
|
| 65061876 | about 7 years ago | Nice work. :-) |
| 65019765 | about 7 years ago | No worries, thanks for your edits and responsiveness! I would interpret that tutorial as meaning you shouldn’t keep the editor open for days, working on unrelated changes all over the map. :-) |
| 65016794 | about 7 years ago | Yup, I think that’s all OK. Seems to fit in with the tagging guidelines: osm.wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_bridleways |
| 65030319 | about 7 years ago | (Note: This changeset only changed the designation of the existing mapped path. Having been here myself many times, the path definitely exists on the ground, and existed in OSM prior to this edit.) |
| 65030319 | about 7 years ago | Are you copying data from an OS walking map? For tedious licensing reasons, that’s not allowed (see osm.wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata for the list of OS data we *are* allowed to use in OpenStreetMap). If you copy data from OS walking maps, you risk all your edits being reverted in order to keep OSM’s licensing correct.
|
| 65030650 | about 7 years ago | As far as I’m aware, foot/bicycle/horse=designated implies access=yes, but also means that that’s the intended user of the track. Why change this, out of interest?
|